THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

With his circular Apponyi seemed to express his disapproval of the behavior of the Romanian schoolteachers from Hungary during their visit to Romania, penalizing them with a four day pay-cut. Not long afterwards he embarked on the final elaboration of his famous law proposal. In this proposal he was guided by the idea of preventing future manifestations of the irredentist spirit within the schools of the nationalities that were contrary to the interests of the Hungarian state. In his justification of the proposal he explained that the state recognized the right of the churches to sponsor schools and even helped them financially to exercise this right; but there is one condition to this aid and to the recognition of the churches' mission: Every school should provide faultless education in patriotic citizenship." ⁵⁸

After several modifications, and considerable struggle inside and outside parliament, the proposal was adopted in 1907. This became the Act XVIII of 1907 mentioned already several times. All nationalities, but especially the Romanians, protested against this Act in a series of mass rallies, and heatedly denounced some of its measures in the House of Representatives. The rally at Szaszvaros, for instance, was held in front of the church, and the pupils of the Romanian primary school were brought out. But neither the series of rallies nor the interventions in parliament prevented the proposal from being adopted. What is more, the consensus in the House of Representatives was that the original text

218

of the proposal was rather mild in places. Thus several representatives proposed even stronger compulsory measures. ⁵⁹ Apponyi, however, rejected the extremist proposals, seeking a balance between the motions raised and preserving the rights of the nationalities along with the defense of Hungarian interests.

The most heatedly debated parts of the law were Articles 15 through 21. In fact, these were basically the measures for which the law was written in the first place. All these measures were aimed at realizing the new concepts enunciated in Article 17:

Every school and every teacher, regardless of the type of school he is attached to and whether or not that school receives state subvention, is required to express and reinforce in the souls of the children attachment to the Hungarian fatherland and consciousness of belonging to the Hungarian nation, as well as morality and religion.

As outward expression of this spirit, the seal of Hungary is to be placed above the main entrance to the school and in the classrooms. Illustrations from Hungarian history are to be pasted on the walls of the classrooms, and on national holidays the flag bearing the national seal must be flown from the building. In addition to these symbols, only the seals of the district and of the community, or religious symbols may be displayed. The government will provide Hungarian flags, seals, and illustrations for the denominational schools of the nationalities at its own expense. The deliberate failure to carry out these measures is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of 500 crowns.

These measures were aimed at changing the anti-Hungarian atmosphere of the schools of the nationalities. We have noted the system of irredentist ideas permeating the national songs taught in the Romanian schools of Hungary; we have noted the feelings expressed at the Bucharest fair, indicating that the Romanians regarded Romania as their "fatherland," their "true country" and their "home" and most Hungarian members of parliament had not forgotten the news about this Bucharest fair. Hence they voted unanimously in favor of the measure which prescribed that every teacher should "express and reinforce in the souls of the children the idea of attachment to the Hungarian homeland and of the consciousness of belonging to the Hungarian nation." The Romanians knew they had exceeded the measure in Bucharest. In protesting against the Act they selected their arguments far more carefully than during previous protests. In their parliamentary speeches as well as in their written petitions they

219

stressed that these measures were "completely superfluous," and "generate a general lack of trust and feelings of animosity without good reason." After all, they had never questioned the "self-evident" task of the schools which "consists in reinforcing loyal attachment to the Hungarian homeland." Therefore, it was unnecessary to require this by legislation. They objected to the prescription regarding the compulsory use of the Hungarian flag and seal because, as they indicated in their petition of 1915, "the success of the operation of the school does not depend on decorating the school building with external symbols. ⁶⁰

Other measures of the law which were found highly objectionable related to the language of instruction, the number of periods devoted to the teaching of Hungarian, the approval of the curricula and textbooks. and the employment of teachers at schools receiving state subvention. According to Article 18 the language of instruction at the schools of the nationalities would continue to be determined by the organization sponsoring the school, but where there was no school with Hungarian as the language of instruction, yet at least 20 students spoke Hungarian as their mother tongue, they must be taught in Hungarian even in the denominational school. If 5096 of the registered students spoke Hungarian as their mother tongue then the language of instruction at the school must be Hungarian, although the students who spoke no Hungarian could continue to receive instruction in their mother tongue. The Romanian members of parliament protested most vigorously against having to teach Hungarian children in Hungarian at the denominational schools, because they felt this measure jeopardized the autonomy of the church and the unity of the schools. "It is impossible to carry out, in practice, a system of public schools with two languages of instruction," wrote the Romanian Orthodox archbishop in his petition of 1915. Indeed, the Hungarian government did not insist that this measure be carried out, hence as the report of the archbishop had predicted, it was not applied to the territory of the archdiocese. This was also, the fate by and large, of the measure which prescribed Hungarian as the language of instruction of remedial courses. ⁶¹ As regards the extent to which Hungarian was to be taught, Article 19 of the Law stipulated:

In primary schools where the language of instruction is not Hungarian, whether they receive state subvention or not, Hungarian is to be taught as a subject in every class according to the curriculum determined by the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, in consultation with the denomination sponsoring the school, to such an extent that the child whose mother tongue

220

is not Hungarian should be able to express his or her thoughts

orally and in writing, in Hungarian, in an understandable

fashion, upon completion of the fourth year.

Therefore the Ministry prescribed a curriculum according to which Hungarian had to be taught as a subject between 13 to 39 periods a week in schools where Hungarian was not the language of instruction, depending on the number of teachers. This meant a weekly 13 periods in schools with a single teacher, 21 1/2 periods in schools with two teachers, 26 1/2 periods in schools with three teachers, 32 periods in schools with four or five teachers, and 39 periods in schools with six teachers, or an average of two hours and ten minutes a week per form. The instruction of the official language, which did not exceed three forty minute periods a week at most, was regarded by the Romanians as a "pedagogic impossibility,' and they protested against it assiduously.

The Law also introduced new measures affecting the curriculum of schools receiving state subvention, the authorization of textbooks, and the employment of teachers at those schools. According to Article 20, in community schools where the language of instruction was not Hungarian the teachers could receive state subvention only if the Hungarian language, arithmetic, Hungarian geography, history and government were taught in accordance with the curriculum prescribed by the Minister, for the prescribed number of periods, with the help of textbooks approved by the Minister as well. Only readers and teaching materials with a patriotic content, approved by the Minister, could be used in these schools. Complementing the above prescription, Article 21 of the law stipulated that if the state contributed over 200 crowns to the pay of a teacher at a community or denominational school, then the consent of the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education was required for his or her appointment. The Minister could withhold his approval for state reasons.

Further provisions of the Act dealt with disciplinary measures against denominational school teachers, and with forms issued by the school administrations. These measures provided for separate state disciplinary procedures in addition to the procedures applied by the ecclesiastic courts. Moreover, they prescribed the mandatory use of school forms in Hungarian schools and bilingual forms in the languages of the nationalities.

The Apponyi Laws constitute a serious attempt on the part of the government to harmonize the schools where the language of instruction was other than Hungarian with the interests of the Hungarian state. Among all the nationalities, the Romanians fought against it most

221

insistently, because they were most intent on preserving the irredentist, anti-Hungarian spirit of the schools. They placed the greatest obstacles in front of the Law, postponing its application, and not applying certain measures of the Act at all. As became obvious during the war the Law did not even come close to achieving the results some Hungarians had hoped it would.

The provisions regarding the salary of teachers and the situation of the schools were not carried out until after 1910. At the request of the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education the Romanian archbishop of Nagyszeben instructed the schools under his jurisdiction to carry out the provisions of the Law with his directive 11.410 of September 30, 1910. Some of these provisions were realized under interesting and rather typical circumstances.

Until 1907, before the Apponyi Laws, the teachers at Romanian denominational schools were not expected to swear allegiance to the Hungarian constitution, nor were they committed to the observance of Hungarian laws. Once Act XXVII of 1907 declared that the teachers at denominational schools were civil servants, the official oath affecting civil service status applied to them as well. Consequently, in each county, the Romanian denominational teachers had to appear at the county seat to take the oath. Contemporary observers tell us of the conflicting feelings the Romanian teachers exhibited in the process. In Hunyad county some teachers on their way to Deva, the county seat, stopped at Cebe [Cebea] to place a wreath decorated with the Romanian national colors on the tomb of Auram Iancu. The ribbon tying the wreath bore the following inscription: "The ideas of your soul will remain in our souls forever. The Romanian teachers." ⁶² In other words, the Romanian teachers vowed that even after taking the required oath they will continue to teach according to the principles advocated by Iancu. No doubt these same teachers were among those who, the following day, took part in a luncheon, having ceremonially taken the oath on the Constitution in front of the county high sheriff and the superintendent of schools. At the luncheon they caused a scandal. While the orchestra played the Hungarian anthem some teachers remained seated to show their contempt. ⁶³ We have found no data indicating whether the said teachers were or were not reprimanded for their disrespectful attitude.

The teachers could demonstrate with impunity against the anthem because in Hungary there were no legal prescriptions regarding respect due to the national anthem as there were in Romania. The Minister of Education of Romania issued special directives in 1902 and 1903 regarding the proper gestures towards the national flag and the national

222

anthem. Directive 11.270 of September 27, 1902, required teachers at all Romanian schools to stand up and remove their hat upon hearing the national anthem, wherever they may be at the time. As for the national flag, they were to salute it wherever it was displayed, whether in company or alone. Directive 7104 of August 8, 1903, stipulated respect for the national anthem as a manifestation of national education in the schools. It also prescribed that the portraits of the king and queen be displayed in every classroom. The national anthem must be played to open every school ceremony. The principals of schools where they neglected to play the national anthem would suffer the "most serious" consequences. ⁶⁴

Even the Apponyi Laws had not forced such measures on the teachers at the Romanian schools of Hungary. As we have seen, the purpose of the Law was defense against Romanian irredentism. It took a long time to apply its provisions, and they were carried out in the community schools earlier than in the denominational schools. One superintendent or another may have exceeded his authority in applying the law, and attempted to introduce Hungarian as the language of instruction in the community school. This was the case of the superintendent in Fogaras who ordered that teaching should take place in Hungarian in the community schools under his jurisdiction. The Romanians appealed the directive of the superintendent, but the county committee rejected their appeal. Then the Romanian leaders of the communities carried their appeal even higher, directly to Minister Apponyi; "and the Minister," we read in the report, "recognized the rights of the Romanian language in those schools, and annulled the decision of the county, declaring that it was based on a mistaken interpretation of the law... thus the Romanian language will be preserved in those communities." ⁶⁵

Not everywhere did the officials of the community defend the former language of instruction of their schools so proudly. In many places they were negligent. In the community of Parad (Spini) near Szaszvaros the school board, composed exclusively of Romanians, with the priest in the lead, took no action when the successor of the retired teacher Chirca, in 1907, suddenly decided to teach in Hungarian. "Whose fault is it? Of the Hungarians?" asked the author of an unsigned article in the Romanian weekly.

No. The Hungarians are not at fault here. They are a brave people who know how to work and reap for their nation every thing they can, wherever they can! This is all very fine on their part, for their own sake! We are contemptible ones who give

223

them what they have not even asked for! There have been attempts to Hungarianize the community schools in Fogaras county also, but the Romanians stood up and declared: 'Hold it! We are not giving up our rights!' And the Minister came and said 'You are right, your mother tongue dominates in those schools, and it will continue to dominate.' Indeed, those schools have been saved.... We are always accusing the Hungarian governments of mutilating our rights wherever they can, but in all honesty we must admit that we have lost far more, here and there, on account of our own weakness. ⁶⁶

Such were the conditions, as confirmed by the members of the school board in the community of Novakfalva (Glimboca). This board refused to acknowledge the appointment of a new female teacher because she knew no Romanian. The Romanian priest, Iuliu Musta, declared that not even the Minister had the right to send into the community a schoolteacher who was not wanted, because the Minister would trespass on the autonomy of the community thereby. A concerned Romanian teacher denounced the priest for this statement, on the grounds of incitation. The district court of Karansebes, the court in the first instance, sentenced the priest to three days in state custody, but the case was appealed, and when it ultimately went before the Royal Hungarian Court at Temesvar, Musta was absolved, and the sentence thrown out. ⁶⁷

The same spirit prevailed when the Act was applied to the Romanian denominational schools. We have seen that the Romanian archbishop of Nagyszeben issued his directive regarding the execution of the Law in the Fall of 1910. In a two-year period most schools had adjusted to most instructions contained in the Law. Here too it happened that some superintendent or other exceeded the requirements of the Law. For instance, superintendent Elemer Szabo tried to persuade the teachers at the Romanian schools of the Olt region that they had to celebrate March 15 in their schools, even though the Law prescribed no such thing. but the superintendent was denounced in the columns of the Tribuna, and he was soon transferred. ⁶⁸

It happened sometime that, at the request of the Romanian Orthodox archdiocese, the Minster desisted from applying the Law. This was the case with regard to a provision of Act XLVI of 1908, which provided that the Minister would receive the statements in the report cards and register forms of the primary schools in Hungarian; hence the Minister had only authorized the Hungarian version of the forms. The archdiocese of Nagyszeben then requested the Minister to modify his decision

224

and to recognize the validity of the Romanian version as well. A favorable response was finally obtained inasmuch as the Minister changed the forms which until then had been exclusively in Hungarian and accepted the proposal of the holy see. ⁶⁹

How did the Romanian primary education fare after the Apponyi Laws were applied? The Romanian sources provide the following interesting picture.

The situation of the Romanian primary schools did not change up until 1918, i.e. after the introduction of the Apponyi Laws, which were attacked for many reasons, some of them just others not.

All subjects except Hungarian were taught in Romanian in all Romanian denominational schools, whether they received state subvention or not. Hungarian language as a subject was taught by the so-called ,'active" method, using only Hungarian, and certain materials from arithmetic, history, geography, and government were included in the context of this subject. Arithmetic, history, government, and geography, however, were taught solely in Romanian. The Romanian church authorities only authorized textbooks in Romanian for the teaching of these subjects. ⁷⁰

From 1910/11 Hungarian language , arithmetic, history , government, and geography had to be taught according to the syllabus issued by the Minister in the schools subsidized by the state. In other words, the number of periods devoted to each subject and the topics to be discussed were defined by the Minister.

The instructions regarding the schedule, specified that once the students learned these subjects in their mother tongue, they also had to learn brief summaries in Hungarian during the Hungarian language period. ⁷¹ But these subjects were taught solely in Romanian, i.e. the Romanian schools were not bilingual in this respect. ⁷² The register and the report cards, however, had to be provided in both Hungarian and Romanian.

Except for Hungarian language, all subjects were taught according to the curriculum of the school-sponsoring organization in the schools that did not receive state subsidies. The subjects in the official curriculum, however, had to be given equal coverage in the church curriculum. The total number of periods of instruction was somewhat greater in the state primary schools than in the denominational schools.

225

The situation regarding textbooks was best described in directive 11.4210, dated September 30, 1910, issued by the archdiocese of Nagyszeben. According to this directive:

Act XXVII of 1907 does not require that all the textbooks used in our schools be approved by the ministry, but prescribes merely that the manuals for teaching arithmetic, history, government, and geography used in state-subsidized schools be provided with the ministerial seal of approval; as for the schools that were not subsidized by the state, only the manuals of Hungarian language need bear the ministerial seal of approval. As regards the manuals for religions Romanian language, and natural science, these need not be subjected to approval by any organization save the church; schools not subsidized by the state may use any manual (except for Hungarian-language ones) reviewed and approved by the Episcopal synod or consistory. Only books expressly banned by the Minister may not be used in any school ⁷³

The official paper of the church stressed the same principles. "Any textbook approved by the holy see or the Episcopal synod may be introduced into schools that are not subsidized by the state. The textbooks intended for these schools need not be approved by the Minister." ⁷⁴

Thanks to state subsidy and the support of the authorities schools experienced fewer financial problems than before the Apponyi Laws. No special effort was required to obtain state subvention once the conditions prescribed in the law had been met. Ghibu notes that "the state aids the denominational schools too, but in that case the syllabus for five subjects (Hungarian language, history, geography, government, and arithmetic) is determined by the state." ⁷⁵ The government did not adhere firmly to the other conditions required for winning support, and many Romanian schools received the subsidy even though their classrooms were not up to par. In 1913/14 there were still 191 classrooms on the territory of the Orthodox archdiocese that were inadequate. ⁷⁶ The number of schools receiving state subsidies increased year after year. The parishes which could not provide salaries for teachers as stipulated in the Apponyi Law often preferred to give up their schools rather than accept the conditions for state subsidies. Thus a few hundred schools were closed down and replaced partly by community, partly by state schools. The teachers left unemployed as a result of the closures were re-hired either by the community or by the226

state. From the time of the first application of the Act to the beginning of World War I, 35 teaching positions were eliminated in the area of the Orthodox archdiocese, but 39 new ones were established. ⁷⁷ Most often the teacher at the one-teacher school was re-hired at a school with several teachers.

In places where the Romanian parish did not apply for state subvention but raised the teacher's salary on its own, the Apponyi Law ensured the collection of the school tax from the residents. Everyone had to pay a surtax of 5% for the upkeep of the school. This 5% was paid to the state only if there was no denominational school in the parish. "Where the school tithe cannot be collected by the church organizations," wrote Ghibu, "the office of the parish transfers the tax roll to the administration, namely the sheriff's office, which then collects the tax by executive order." ⁷⁸

Romanian church and school authorities sometimes abused the right S to apply the law, as far as taxes were concerned. In some communities their officials collected the school surtax even from individuals who were exempt. For instance, every Uniate parishioner was forced to pay a 15% tax in 1906 and a 30% surtax in 1907, earmarked for the Romanian Uniate school of Oradna. Although this special tax had been rejected by the community assembly, the officials collected it by executive order, and confiscated various objects from those who refused. Twenty-four Romanian parents lodged a complaint against the officials to the county high sheriff, requesting that the confiscated objects be returned to them. ⁷⁹ There is plenty of evidence that this was not an isolated incident. The Romanian schools did not undergo considerable change as regards financial support or the language of instruction. The greatest changes introduced by the law were with regard to the teaching of Hungarian, as well as increased state control over Romanian teachers. In fact, the law of 1879 regarding the teaching of Hungarian was only now put into effect completely. There was no longer any school in which Hungarian was not taught. Yet the pupils in the first grade at Romanian denominational schools were taught to read and write only in Romanian since, according to the ministerial curriculum, Hungarian did not have to be introduced at this level. Hungarian was introduced in the second year, with the method of "active" teaching. Of course, the results depended mainly on the competence and good intentions of the teachers, when work was to be overseen by the superintendents.

This control focused first of all on the teaching of Hungarian or, better said, on assessing the results obtained in teaching the language. It seems the control was rather strict at the beginning. But the

227

Hungarian superintendents, as Ghibu noted, had no "direct authority" over Romanian schools. Their observations were relayed to the Minister who communicated these to the consistory. The consistory then adopted measures to put a halt to practices criticized by the superintendents through its own ecclesiastic and school administration.⁸⁰

The question remains: did the Apponyi Law achieve its true objective, i.e. to change the atmosphere of the Romanian schools? Did it succeed in replacing the sympathy for the notion of a greater Romania, by the patriotic spirit "of belonging to the Hungarian homeland" in the souls of Romanian children or at least managed to weaken irredentist sentiments? On the basis of plentiful evidence available to us the answer can only be in the negative.

The deep-rooted Romanian national sentiment of the teachers changed not a bit; after all, neither these sentiments nor their outward manifestations were forbidden by the Law. Thus the teachers could continue to represent Romanian nationalism freely, and even to raise their pupils in this sense. At the folk festival organized on February 12, 1909, the teacher at the Romanian school of Mirkvasar [Mercheasa] had girls dressed in Romanian colors dance Romanian national dances on the stage of the school. ⁸¹ This activity could not be faulted by the state, since there was no law barring ribbons with the Romanian national colors. The activities of the Romanian teachers at Kaca might have been judged far more severely. In this community the Romanian school had been built from donations by the Mircea brothers of Bucharest, as the Romanian press related on several occasions. The intellectual influence of the donors naturally had its impact on the activities of the teachers. This was noted by the professors from Romania who passed through the area in the spring of 1912, on a visit to Hungary. The professors were enchanted by the activities they witnessed at the Romanian school and their impact on the village. The residents of the Romanian village were deeply imbued by Romanian culture. ',The portrait of our king [Romania's] may be found in every home," wrote the participant who gave an account of the visit," and there are Romanian books everywhere, as in a small library." ⁸² In this case the Greater Romania mentality was not limited to the school: The portrait of the foreign ruler became a household item in the homes of Romanians living in the Hungarian state.

From 1913 on the Greater Romania mentality of the schools began to thrive again, in spite of the strict measures of the Apponyi Law, and became stronger than ever before. From 1907 to 1913 the Romanian teachers felt hesitant, timid, and depressed. As Nicolae Sulica, a controller of the holy see of the Orthodox Church, noted towards the end

228

of 1912, the superintendent pushed the image of the respectable Romanian deacon into the background of the perception of the teachers, while the name of the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education often overshadowed that of the chief dignitary of the church. ⁸³ Many teachers believed that the Law had to be taken seriously, and tried to comply with the stipulations regarding the teaching of Hungarian. Apart from this, some teachers sincerely wanted their pupils to learn Hungarian in school, if only for the sake of retaining state subsidies. There were even some who began to teach Hungarian in the first grade for the sake of better results, although the curriculum imposed by the Minister mandated Hungarian only in the second grade.⁸⁴ Many teachers in the counties of Szatmar and Beszterce-Naszod acted this way; for instance, Iuliu Danciu, teacher at Kacko [Citcau], requested that the periods devoted to Hungarian be increased from 13 to 26, to enable him to teach the language better. Similar manifestations and strivings revealed the vulnerability of teaching primary school exclusively in Romanian, as a result of the introduction of the Apponyi Laws.

It soon turned out, however, that the measures of the Law regarding the teaching of Hungarian need not be taken literally. The first modification in this request was offered by the Hungarian Minister of Religious Affairs and Education himself in his instructions attached to the curriculum. According to these instructions the curriculum determined only the general subjects, whereas the time devoted to specific topics "must follow from the nature of things." In judging the effectiveness of teaching, the superintendents were instructed to "bear in mind the environment of the school which at times may affect the results adversely, even when the teachers are self-sacrificing and enthusiastic." According to this basic principle the teachers were instructed, in turn, to bear in mind "the living conditions of the child, to adjust to the natural, social, and economic environment, and pay particular attention to the spiritual development and the sphere of knowledge of the pupil.''⁸⁵

Thanks to this concession the Romanian teacher soon felt the way open to liberation from fear of the law. ,'We must not feel demoralized, there is no need to observe the law literally,,' they kept insisting more and more frequently. According to the instructions regarding the curriculum, it was possible to refer to the environment, to the spiritual needs and the sphere of knowledge of the students. Indeed, a child living in a purely Romanian environment was not in a favorable position to learn Hungarian: his sphere of knowledge extended only to his mother tongue. Therefore even the superintendents, in compliance

229

with the ministerial instructions, had to admit that the poor results or complete lack of results obtained in teaching Hungarian was not necessarily the teacher's fault but merely a consequence of the unfavorable environment. Thus there was the possibility of substantial- ly easing the measures regarding the teaching of Hungarian, and the predicament of the teachers improved as a result. They could explain the meager results, yet safeguard their financial interests (that is, the continued disbursement of state subsidies), while still performing their duties as teachers according to their Romanian conscience. When Hossu, the Uniate bishop of Szamosujvar, made an appearance at the general assembly of the Uniate teachers at Nagyiklod [Iclod] on October 20, 1912, he offered words of encouragement, referring to the above possibilities in veiled terms: "It is true, the laws of the land demand that Hungarian be taught in incomparably larger measure than heretofore, but this is not unfortunate; I am convinced that even so we may achieve satisfactory results."⁸⁶

By 1913 the majority of the Romanian teaching corps had reached a consensus regarding the tenacious nibbling away at the most important components of the Apponyi Law, leading to effective sabotage in many places. More and more argued that it was not possible to realize the objective enunciated in Article 19 of Act XXVII of 1907: children could not learn enough Hungarian within four years to express their thoughts in words and in writing in an understandable manner. This consensus was phrased as a resolution by the Orthodox teachers meeting in 1913, and their resolution was soon adopted by the Uniate teachers as well. In this resolution the teachers unanimously declared:

The objective stipulated in Article 19 of Act XXVII of 1907 cannot be achieved, even at the cost of affecting the health of the teachers," and given the environment of the Romanian schools "all their efforts devoted to the teaching of Hungarian had not once resulted in attaining the degree of proficiency required by Article 19 of Act XXVII of 1907. ⁸⁷

By the resolution the Romanian teachers unanimously adopted the stand of non possumus. Hence the objective of the Law was definitely not achieved, because the only logical response would have been to deprive all Romanian teachers of state subsidies. This was not the objective of the Hungarian government, however, and it did not even think of resorting to such a measure. Thus everything remained as before. The teachers taught the children parts of the prescribed syllabus in Hungarian mechanically, while the remainder was not even

230

attempted, since it had been declared impossible. Those teachers who at the beginning had been hesitant, timid, or perhaps excessively enthusiastic and eager to instruct their pupils in Hungarian gradually rallied to the majority view. In connection with the teachers' conference of 1913 Ghibu noted with satisfaction: "Today our teachers no longer fall so easily into error as they had during the first years of the entry in vigor of the Apponyi Law; in fact, they recognize their own errors and seek to eliminate these completely." ⁸⁸

They found the way of eliminating the errors completely by consistently neglecting the teaching of Hungarian, using the environment as an excuse, and by an increased emphasis on the Romanian way. The latter was openly expressed at the Romanian teachers' convention held in Kolozsvar in 1913. One speaker among several clearly pointed out that as far as the Romanian teachers were concerned there is nothing but the Romanian nation, the Romanian language, and Romanian history. He declared:

For us teachers, we have nothing but the Romanian nation, which includes all members of our race wherever they may live, whose aspirations are the same everywhere.... The Romanian language and literature are the common treasure 5f this nation.... Let us bow our heads in front of that glorious past which we have learnt to know from the holy book of the history of our race, and let us have faith in a bright future. Our calling and our work are not restricted to the four walls of the school, but compel us to defend ourselves against every alien influence aimed at our race and schools, whether it appear under the form of bilingualism or under any other form. ⁸⁹

According to this analysis, after a few years of hesitation and depression the teachers turned back once again on to the road of yearning for national unity with the Romanians of Romania. They continued to live and teach according to the principles, spirit, and aspirations of the slogan "one nation, one race, one culture," within the schools as well as outside of them. In face of this mentality a partial, or even complete application of the Apponyi Laws (although they were never completely applied) could not have elicited any real change. On the contrary; the evidence is overwhelming that the provisions regarding increased teaching of the Hungarian language as well as those pertaining to the display of the national flag and seal on school buildings only enhanced the anti-Hungarian irredentism of the Romanians. One sign of this anti-state and anti-Hungarian irredentist

231

sentiment was the frequent removal of the Hungarian seal displayed on school-buildings, at night by unknown culprits. The seal would be found broken in some stream or at the garbage dump. Such vandalism could be carried out without serious repercussions, since the authorities of the "oppressive" Hungarian state usually limited themselves to launching an investigation, and the investigation would normally not lead to any results, whereupon the pertinent report would be filed away and a new seal displayed, at state expense, in place of the broken one.⁹⁰

Romanian antagonism manifested itself not only against the Hungarian seal but against the Hungarian language and Hungarian ideas as well. A Romanian journalist from Hungary, Maior, recalled his interview with the famous Romanian playwright Ion Luca Caragiale, in 1912, under the title "Remembering." Caragiale expressed regret at having forgotten the Hungarian language which he had understood fairly well at one time. Maior strongly objected to these regrets. He declared that he himself considered it a sin to learn Hungarian. "I tried hard to convince him that Hungarian was without any esthetic merit, that it wasn't even a civilized language, merely an Asiatic one" which caused downright pain with its ear-damaging sounds. Upon which Caragiale commented: ,,You are just as chauvinistic as they are.,'⁹¹

It is obvious that a Romanian who did not recognize the Dual Constitution of 1867 of the Hungarian state would resent as unbearable oppression everything that was justified and constitutional in the eyes of the Hungarian government. According to Hungarian concepts, as formulated by Ferenc Deak, all residents of Hungary combined to form the Hungarian political nation, of which every Hungarian citizen was politically a member (as far as citizenship, rights, obligations were concerned), regardless of his or her mother tongue. Moreover, this concept recognized the separate nationality of the citizens whose language was not Hungarian. The textbooks of history, geography, Hungarian language, and Romanian language designed for use in the Romanian primary schools naturally embodied this concept, reflecting a basic concern with the preservation of the state. But the Romanians, rather than recognize the Compromise of 1867 and the Dual Constitution, chose to regard it as illegal and considered the inclusion of these concepts in the textbooks at Romanian schools as most offensive and as an unbearable manifestation of Hungarian chauvinism. Thus Ghibu, the former superintendent of schools of the Romanian Orthodox archdiocese of Transylvania, quoted in one of his works certain excerpts from these textbooks "upon reading which the chest of the Romanian feels tightened." Expressions such as: our country is called Hungary; Hungary is our homeland; the nations of our country combine to form

232

the indivisible Hungarian political nation; the residents of the country are differentiated by their nationality and their religion; in our homeland different languages are spoken of which the most significant is Hungarian because it is the official language and the language of general communication; etc. "all point to the process of Hungarianization." Ghibu regarded such expressions as frightening examples of aggressive Hungarianization and of an excessively patriotic education. He even criticized readings written for the purpose of practicing the language, one of which could be summarized as "Romanians are also sons of our dear homeland, Hungary " or the notion that "the Hungarian is a good person" - something that was unacceptable to Romanians.⁹²

To representatives of this line of thought the measures introduced by the Apponyi Laws could only appear as the most intolerable aggression, and it became a matter of conscience for every self-respecting Romanian to circumvent them and to protest against them within the country and abroad. The charges and attributes heaped upon Apponyi indicate the depth of this hatred: "the vampire of the schools," and "the hangman of the freedom of education and religion," ⁹³ were among the mildest. Apponyi's conference in Vienna was drowned out by persistent shouts and whistling on the part of Romanian university students there, and spread a hateful reputation of him abroad. In the final analysis the Apponyi Law proved completely inadequate to restrain the anti-Hungarian irredentist spirit. Even if it had been carried out successfully for an extended period of time with all factors in its favor, it would still not have achieved the desired results because of the international predicament.

Thus, from 1913 on, the Romanian irredentist spirit once again dominated the Romanian primary schools. Undoubtedly Romania's role in the Balkan War of 1913 contributed to this; the great success which Romania reaped at the peace of Bucharest filled the Romanians of Hungary with enormous satisfaction and expectations. From then on the teacher-conductors of the village choruses sang the well-known work of the composer Ciprian Porumbescu on every ceremonial occasion a beautiful melody which emphasized with growing conviction the expected unification with Romania "Unity is inscribed on our banners." ⁹⁴

233

archbishop of Nagyszeben, promising to modify the Apponyi Law. At the same time the superintendents of schools were instructed to be particularly considerate of the environment. Encouraged by the letter from Tisza the Romanian Orthodox Church, through its office of education, elaborated a proposal for modifying the law and Metianu forwarded it to the Prime Minister at the beginning of 1915. In this historically most interesting proposal the leaders of the Romanian Orthodox Church pointed out the measures they found objectionable and unrealistic and which were not put into practice due to circumstances for instance, Articles 18, 19, and 21 - and described in detail the Romanian position on these issues.⁹⁵ The proposal was studied by the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Education. Tisza honestly wanted to see the Law modified, partly because he himself felt that many of its measures were unfortunate, and also because he hoped to propitiate the Romanians by concessions. This hope, however, diminished as the war progressed. The army commands and law and order agencies reported that many Romanian teachers had escaped to Romania and enlisted in the Romanian army. This fact, as well as Romanian entry into the war in 1916, prevented the modification of the Apponyi Laws.

On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on the Central Powers, and that same day Romanian troops crossed the Transylvanian border. There was no sizable Hungarian force stationed in Transylvania, hence the Romanian troops were able to advance rather rapidly. The majority of the Uniate and Orthodox teachers, up to 80% in some areas, rallied to the advancing forces - i.e. the enemy troops from the point of view of the state. The Romanian teachers, always imbued with the spirit of irredentism, saw in the advance of the long awaited Romanian troops the final realization of the concept of a Greater Romania, and eagerly awaited the opportunity to carry out the assignments given them by the Romanian military commands. These assignments and orders were of a military nature, and in most cases had to do with the control, spying upon, and denunciation of the Hungarian population remaining in the area. But the Romanian forces were only able to occupy, for a short while, the counties adjacent to the Romanian border, and a few months later had to retreat even from these border areas. The Romanian denomination teachers who had collaborated with the Romanian army and carried out their military orders dared not remain at their post. They knew they would have to account for their acts in front of the Hungarian authorities. After all, not only were they subjects of the Hungarian state, but civil servants living on state subvention. Thus several hundred Uniate, Orthodox and other Romanian teachers left with the retreating troops for Romania, and their schools remained

234

without a staff. Serious and incriminating charges were lodged against them once the Hungarian authorities returned, even regarding the attitude of some Romanian teachers who had remained at their post.

At this time army headquarters sent a memorandum to Apponyi, the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, requesting him to make sure that only completely loyal teachers be allowed to remain in the areas along the borders, for military and security reasons. Accordingly, Apponyi contemplated nationalizing the Romanian schools along the border. He informed the Romanian archbishopric of Nagyszeben about this plan on August 2, 1917, since the nationalization would affect mostly the Orthodox schools under its jurisdiction. In his directive Apponyi referred, first to the "painful events connected with the invasion of the Romanian army," then continued:

The attitude exhibited by the great majority of the teachers

at denominational schools during the invasion convinced me that patriotic intentions had not prevailed in the schools of the aforementioned areas.... This consideration prompts me to nationalize the schools, which I undertake in order to build a strong cultural boundary line for the homeland; in order to bring this about, the communities most indicated are the ones whence the denominational school teachers had departed voluntarily with the enemy, or whose denominational and community school teachers are under disciplinary investigation. I will make sure that the teachers posted in the state schools thus created are familiar with the mother tongue of the people. ⁹⁶

The consistory of the archdiocese of Nagyszeben repeatedly tried to persuade the Minister to alter his decision, but in vain. To solve the school issue along the borders, the Minister dispatched a commissioner who attended the meeting of the Romanian consistory on November 17, 1917. Here the latter pointed out the reason, personally and viva voce, why the government insisted on the nationalization of the schools concerned: it had been requested by the army corps high command, which urged the establishment of a "cultural zone."

The final episodes of the war prevented further action. The cultural zone project of the Hungarian government, elaborated at the most critical moment of the war, remained dead letter; it could not be carried out after the collapse of 1918.

Elaborated under war conditions and for military considerations the project has been presented later, in the histories of Romanian educational institutions, as if it had been definitely carried out. It has been

235

described as the culmination of the Apponyi Laws, as a deliberate measure of forceful Hungarianization, the brainchild of Hungarian chauvinism aimed at Romanian denominational schools. This was the way the topic was introduced even to the League of Nations in the mid-twenties, when the representatives of the Hungarian minority in Romania complained about a Romanian cultural zone in the land of the Szekelys. Of course, they failed to mention that the chauvinist idea of an actual cultural zone was first realized in the Old Kingdom of Romania towards the end of the 19th century, with a view to Romanianize the Bulgarians of Dobrudja and the Hungarian Csangok of Moldavia. That project had been worked out and carried out according to the concepts of Spiru C. Haret, the Romanian Minister of Education.

The Minister completely reorganized education in the Kingdom of Romania at the end of the 19th century. The principal objective of the reorganization was the complete Romanianization of all foreign ethnic groups in the country. He intended to attain this objective with the help of kindergarten, primary, and secondary schools. The basic tasks had to be solved at the kindergarten level. Aware that the majority of the inhabitants of the Dobrudja, attached to Romania m 1878, were not of Romanian background, and likewise aware of the existence of the Hungarian Csangok in Moldavia, he focused the efforts of the Romanian kindergarten and primary schools on these two areas. Thus he established the first kindergartens in Dobrudja and in the villages inhabited by the Csangok, and devoted special attention to the primary schools in these areas as well. These regions were considered a "cultural zone," where the principal tasks of the kindergartens, primary schools, and secondary schools was to Romanianize the non-Romanian nationalities. Haret started from the assumption that the Bulgarians of Dobrudja were already Romanians as a consequence of the "reattachment" to Romania but unfortunately they were not familiar with the language because of their foreign background. Hence, the most immediate task of the kindergartens was "to familiarize the children with our language, as their age permits." Thanks to these kindergartens "the education of the children in the villages with alien residents becomes uniform sooner. The primary schools would then have an easier task; otherwise they would have to face enormous obstacles - the ignorance of our language." Yet the primary schools, imbued with the national spirit, would be able to overcome this obstacle. The primary schools have to be national, or nothing.

Consequently, the Romanian government established altogether 168 kindergartens in the period 1897 to 1910. About one hundred of these were set up in the non-Romanian villages of the provinces of Constanta

236

and Tulcea in Dobrudja, while twenty more were set up in the Hungarian villages of Moldavia. The Law of December 11, 1909, made attendance at these kindergartens mandatory, thereby ensuring that the Bulgarian and Hungarian children would learn Romanian fast. In the greater part of the country, the purely Romanian counties, the government set up only 48 kindergartens, whereas it set up 120 small "cultural zone" inhabited by three nationalities.^{97 97}

A Kindergarten Act was also adopted in Hungary in 1891, stipulating that minding the non-Hungarian children be combined with their introduction to the official language of the country. But the law did not apply to those parents who were able to care for their children in their homes, nor did it specify any punitive sanctions against delinquent kindergarten teachers. Its main objective was probably to make it easier for the state schools, where instruction was to take place in Hungarian.

According to the concepts of Eotvos a primary education was mainly the responsibility of the denominational and community schools He did not even strive to establish state schools. Until the end of the century his successors likewise seldom manifested any enthusiasm for setting up state schools. But since in some places the denominations - especially the purely Hungarian Reformed Church and the Unitarian Church could not or did not want to accept the sacrifices entailed by sponsoring schools, the state assumed responsibility for the personnel expenses involved and, renting the existing school space of the denominational schools, organized state schools. Entirely new state schools were set up beginning in the eighties, especially in communities where there were no schools at all. In 1869 there was not a single state school, whereas in 1880 1.6% of all schools belonged to the state. In 1900 the state schools still did not exceed 10%. It is obvious that financial considerations prevented the state from increasing the number of state schools.

Since the first state schools in Transylvania and east of the Tisza River were usually set up where the Hungarian Reformed and Unitarian dioceses had given up their schools and leased the premises to the state, they catered to a purely Hungarian population and naturally the language of instruction was Hungarian. These dioceses had usually signed contracts with the state, retaining the right of ownership to the school buildings. At the same time, however, fearing a return of Austrian autocratic rule, in which case the Austrians might decide to

237

introduce German as the language of instruction, they prescribed that the school institute Hungarian as the language of instruction, whereas the teacher to be appointed should be of the same religion as the members of the diocese and be able to fill the post of cantor as well if necessary. During the entire period of the Compromise, 170 Reformed and 38 Unitarian denominational schools were thus ceded to the Hungarian state. ⁹⁸

Hence the state schools replaced denominational schools of the Reformed and Unitarian churches, at least at the beginning. From the eighties on, however, the government began to set up state schools in communities where none of the denominations had schools. As soon as they set up schools in areas inhabited by Romanians the question of the language of instruction arose: should it be Romanian or Hungarian? In accordance with the letter and spirit of the nationalities law (Article 17) the state was obliged "to the extent possible" to make sure that the ethnic groups living in larger concentrations are able to obtain an education in their mother tongue. There is some evidence that until the eighties the teachers at all community schools established in Romanian villages resorted to Romanian as the language of instruction. It seems that after 1883 Hungarian became the language of instruction at community schools in many a village. This prompted the Romanian Orthodox representative Candrea to intervene at the April 1884 meeting of the Romanian Episcopal synod of Nagyszeben. ⁹⁹ Candrea asked the members of the synod whether they were aware that Romanian was not being taught in the state and community schools of Romanian communities? Yet other data, however, suggest that in many villages the teachers at the community schools still taught in Romanian, even after the introduction of the Apponyi Laws. In the newly-established state schools the language of instruction was Hungarian.

By setting up state primary schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction in villages with a Romanian population, Hungarian educational policy unquestionably overlooked Article 17 of the law on nationalities, according to which Romanian children had to be taught in Romanian even in the state schools. With its system of primary schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction even in areas inhabited by the nationalities Hungarian educational policy committed a serious mistake, with unfortunate consequences. This mistake is mitigated by the fact that the state did not force anyone to transfer from denominational to state schools. Nevertheless in the final analysis primary schools in ethnic areas, with Hungarian as the language of instruction even if few in number, were equally useless from the Romanian and the Hungarian point of view. Children living in a purely

238

Romanian environment seldom learned Hungarian, while the policy elicited a lot of ill-feeling. The assumption was easily made: by mandating Hungarian as the language of instruction the state wanted to Hungarianize the Romanians. So it appeared, indeed, although, with hindsight, one may say that anyone expecting Hungarianization of the Romanians to result from a few hundred state schools was incredibly naive; after all, there were nearly 3,000 purely Romanian schools in the country. Indeed, the illusion of Hungarianizing through schools was entertained by some Hungarians, as we may note from speeches and declarations here and there. The nationalities, primarily the Romanians, were prompt to make use of these declarations abroad, accusing the Hungarians of constant aggressive and crude attempts at Hungarianizing and of cruel oppression of the nationalities. At the same time, however, they dispelled the worries and anxieties of those who actually believed the complaints aired abroad, by describing the actual situation in a calming way: "We have admitted several times that we do not feel ourselves threatened in our existence by the Hungarians," confessed an important anti-Hungarian Romanian weekly. ¹⁰⁰ Basically the Romanians did not truly believe they were being Hungarianized, yet took advantage of the relevant declarations by some Hungarians; and one of the most frequently used issues was precisely the issue of state schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction.

Towards the end of the century, the establishment of the kindergartens had become an issue used against Hungarian educational policies, as well as state schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction. Yet the drafting of the Kindergarten by Act XV of 1891 was not expressly intended as Hungarianization. Only those children in the age group three to six who could not be minded properly in the home were compelled to attend kindergarten. ¹⁰¹There the children were taught to pray, sing, and play various games. According to the oft criticized Article 8 of the Kindergarten Act "in the kindergartens and homes for children, the occupation of those whose mother tongue is not Hungarian will be combined with the introduction of Hungarian as the official language." The proposed Act spelled out, in its preamble:

that knowing how easily small children acquire other languages in the course of play, it seemed appropriate to stipulate that those children whose mother tongue was not Hungarian be introduced to it, as the official language of the state, thereby facilitating the task of the primary schools in carrying out Act XVIII of 1879. ¹⁰²

239

This specific measure of the Act on kindergartens concealed no real danger regarding the nationality of Romanian children, for the law included no sanctions against those kindergarten teachers who might decide to disregard the provisions of the law. On the other hand, it proved once again a most useful weapon against the Hungarian state in the hands of the Romanians. Most likely it was the lack of success in carrying out the provisions of Act XVIII of 1879, as well as the lack of achievements in state primary schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction in villages inhabited by the nationalities that prompted the government to propose this law. In this respect the Kindergarten Act was indeed a consequence of Act XVIII of 1879. It goes without saying, however, that instruction exclusively in Hungarian in state primary schools, as well as the above provision of the law on kindergartens, hurt the Hungarian state far more than they helped.

After the turn of the century, state schools and Romanian denomination schools worked side by side more often. Naturally, at the beginning this situation existed only in the larger communities with a mixed population. For a long time the two kinds of schools lived side by side in peace, the Hungarian children attending the Hungarian state school, the Romanian children attending the denominational school. This process was not rigid, however, since it often happened that Romanian parents would send their children to a Hungarian state school, whereas Hungarians parents would send theirs to the Romanian denominational school for the sake of learning the language. Romanian newspapers frequently attacked those parents who sent their children to Hungarian state schools. This issue did not cause particular tension between state and denominational schools, however, until the Apponyi Laws.

The situation changed after the adoption of Act XVIII of 1907, by which time there was a state school with Hungarian as the language of instruction alongside the Romanian denominational school in many a small village with a Hungarian and Romanian population. Since the Romanian parishes often could not pay the higher salaries prescribed by the Apponyi Law, they had but two alternatives: either they requested state subvention, or they applied for the establishment of a state school in lieu of the denominational school. Thus the struggle between state and denominational school got under way.

The evidence concerning this competition between Hungarian state schools and Romanian denominational schools is noteworthy. In several hundred relatively prosperous Romanian parishes the teachers' salary was raised, hence the survival of the Romanian denomination school was ensured. The state seldom set up a school in such places. Where, as a consequence of the excessive zeal of some school superintendent, a

240

Hungarian state or community school was nevertheless set up, it usually remained empty. Such was the case in the community of Szentandras in Hunyad county, where Romanians residents had built a beautiful new school, dedicated in the fall of 1911, after the Apponyi Law. The community also had a state school with Hungarian as the language of instruction, but the Romanians, taking advantage of the principle of freedom of instruction, did not send their children to the state school, and the latter remained empty. One night unknown parties shattered its windows and doors because, as we can read in the report, "some over-emotional people felt irritated by the fact that the state teacher remained in the village, took walks, and received his pay for doing nothing, as if to provoke the Romanians.'' ¹⁰³ The two schools in Palos [Palos] competed in a similarly violent manner. Here the Hungarian leadership organized a community school with Hungarian as the language of instruction, in addition to the somewhat weak Orthodox school which had two teachers. After a struggle which lasted ten months the Hungarian school was closed down "since the brave Romanians refused to send their children there."¹⁰⁴

Judging by the evidence of many similar occurrences the Hungarian state did not intervene at all in the local competition between the Romanian denominational and the Hungarian state school. Rather than limit freedom of instruction by forcing children to attend a Hungarian school it preferred to allow the state or community school with Hungarian as the language of instruction to wither away or close down. It may have happened, in isolated cases, that some megalomaniac village teacher tried to lure away the pupils of the Romanian denominational school to the Hungarian school with one device or another, but such measures were inevitably followed by countermeasures. All the more so, as the Romanian press and the church and school authorities could fight unhampered for the Romanian denominational school and against the Hungarian state school. The Romanian press could announce, without the least fear of incurring official sanctions or consequences, "a complete national boycott, the refusal of all assistance or service" to those who requested a state school in lieu of the denominational one. ¹⁰⁵ The boycott was observed strictly. "We must never forget the sin of the wicked ones," explained the Libertatea. "You must be adamant, merciless, vindictive and aggressive all your life and not let your anger against the wicked ones [i.e. those who requested a state school dissipate].', Where such measures are taken, the evil ones either move away or break down. ¹⁰⁶

This response was prompted by the steps taken in many a Romanian community to set up a state school. Indeed, in many places the village

241

elders had requested a state school instead of the denominational school. For instance, in 1908, the Romanian community of Karacs [Carciu], in Hunyad county, led by the priest Indrei, decided to join the state school of Korosbanya. Until that time it had maintained a denominational school in conjunction with the village of Cebe, but now it decided to sever this old relationship and sent a delegation to the sheriff in order to request approval of its new resolution.¹⁰⁷ A similar occurrence took place in the village of Sibisan [Sibisani] near Alvinc [Vintu de Jos]. Here the salary of the teacher of the Romanian Orthodox school was raised in 1908 by the community as well as the consistory, but in the summer of the following year the people had second thoughts about the teacher, rebelled against the denominational school, and requested a state school instead. The deacon, however, refused to record their resolution to this effect. When the Romanian residents found out, they sent a delegation to the superintendent at Enyed and, informing him of the stand taken by the deacon, insisted that a state school be set up in the village. ¹⁰⁸ The Romanian residents of Lonapoklostelke [Paglesia or Piglisa or Paglisa] in Szolnok-Doboka county acted in a similar manner; many among them protested against the new Romanian school, and asked that a state school be set up in the village.¹⁰⁹

From these and other incidents not mentioned here it becomes clear that the national consciousness of the Romanian villagers did not always regard the setting up of state schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction as a threat. On the other hand, it is obvious that the state refrained from intervening against the freedom of instruction of the Romanian population. In the history of the competition between Hungarian state and Romanian denominational schools, there is no example of the state closing down the Romanian schools in order to force its own state school onto the residents of the community. The evidence indicates that the state school was always requested by the Romanians themselves, partly because it was set up entirely at state expense, without burdening the local residents. Where the population gave up the denominational school, apart from its weaker national consciousness the reason was its reluctance to undertake financial sacrifices. There is no instance in the Hungarian school system where the residents of some community had to bear a double tax burden, i.e. to contribute to the support of a state school in addition to supporting their own denominational school.

Once the Apponyi Law was applied, competition between state and denominational schools became a permanent feature in many places. Each had its advantages and disadvantages. Until 1914 the language of instruction in the state schools was in Hungarian only. On August

242

13 of that year, in his directive 114.000, the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education ordered that the mother tongue of children of non-Hungarian parents must be taught as an auxiliary language and as a subject. ¹¹⁰ From then on the rights of the mother tongue prevailed to some extent even in the state schools. Earlier, there was no such guarantee, while the children were required to learn the official language reasonably well. The denominational schools provided an education entirely in Romanian, whereas Hungarian was not taught well. The parents could freely assess the advantages of each system, and decide as they saw fit. The description provided in one Romanian newspaper in 1912 is rather typical of the issue: ,'The Romanians do not support the Romanian school even where there is one, preferring to send their children to foreign schools. At Lugos only 4096 to 50% of the children of school-age attend the Romanian denominational school." One reason for this phenomenon, according to the paper, was that the Romanian schools fell behind the foreign (Hungarian and German) schools as regards direction, supervision, and control. But the real reason was that, according to the growing conviction of some social strata among the Romanian population, ,'under the present circumstances familiarity with Hungarian is absolutely essential, and since this can only be obtained at Hungarian schools, they send their children there.,' ¹¹¹

According to these statements the parents took advantage of the freedom of instruction to the very end. Never during the whole period of Hungarian rule was there any law or directive forcing parents who declared themselves to be Romanian to send their children into schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction. In the competition between schools true freedom of instruction prevailed in the primary as well as the secondary schools.

While the task of the Romanian mass education was largely met by almost 3,000 primary schools with Romanian as the language of instruction, the objectives of Romanian secondary education were served by far fewer institutions. The following Romanian secondary institutions functioned on Hungarian territory in the years preceding the world war: six men's and two women's teachers' colleges, three vocational schools, four girls' high schools, one commercial school, two midwife training schools (there were in fact state institutions, but the material presented to the Romanian students was in Romanian), moreover one junior high and four senior high schools. These Romanian

243

secondary schools could be categorized in terms of their sponsors as community schools, association schools, foundation schools, Royal Catholic schools, and denominational schools. The Romanian character of these schools was provided, in addition to the nationality of those sponsoring them, by the nationality of the teachers and the language of instruction. With one or two exceptions, all the secondary schools mentioned had Romanian as their language of instruction, and, but for Hungarian language and literature, all subjects were taught in Romanian. Given the peculiarities of Romanian society and the significance of the schools, we must differentiate between specialized schools and general high schools. The impact of the former was limited to strata with a certain occupation, whereas the latter had an impact on Romanian society in general as a result of the wide-ranging activities and influence of the Romanian intelligentsia that graduated from them.

The Romanian churches sponsored six men's and two women's teachers' colleges. The colleges of Nagyszeben, Arad, and Karansebes catered to Orthodox students, whereas the ones of Balazsfalva, Nagyvarad, and Lugos catered to Uniate candidates. The institutions at Szamosujvar and Nagyvarad were not only exclusively Romanian Uniate but were Royal and Catholic as well, hence the Ministers of Religious Affairs and Education actually intervened in the administration of the two schools as a consequence of the close relationship between the state and the Roman Catholic Church. In addition to the aforementioned schools, Romanian Uniate colleges were established in 1914 at Lugos, and in 1915 at Szamosujvar. ¹¹²

The Romanian Uniate teachers' colleges had more rights than their Orthodox counterparts. In some of the latter, including the Royal Catholic colleges of Szamosujvar and Nagyvarad, certain subjects were taught in Hungarian, and the certifying examination was conducted by a representative of the government. The teachers were priests with the required competence. The Royal Catholic colleges were made possible by contributions from the Religious Foundation. Hungarian had to be taught in accordance with Act XVIII of 1879, in other words, to such an extent that the candidates should be able to teach it once they graduate. Hungarian language was taught at a rate of four periods a week each year.

In the Romanian Orthodox colleges the candidates had to pass the certifying examination in front of a board appointed by the consistory.

244

The representative of the church consistory was also the president of the committee and of the board of examiners.

The college bearing the name of Andrei Saguna was considered the most prestigious Romanian teachers' college. Even from a financial aspect its teachers stood above their colleagues at other Romanian colleges. According to Ghibu, the Minister had offered to adjust the pay of the other teachers to a level commensurate with that of state professors, but only on condition that four subjects be taught in Hungarian at the Romanian colleges. The church authorities rejected this proposal, and Romanian continued to be the language of instruction at the teachers colleges.

According to Act XVII of 1884, the community was to set up a vocational school if there were over fifty apprentices in a given locality, provided the church had not already done so. The community school thus created was maintained by a surtax of 2%. These were four-year schools, the first being a preparatory year. Although, according to the law, the language of instruction at these schools could only be Hungarian, in reality other languages were used. Thus three Romanian vocational schools were functioning on Hungarian territory, of which two were community supported and one denominational.

245

Midwifery schools on Hungarian territory were run by the state. In spite of this, the subject was presented in Romanian to Romanian ethnic students at Nagyszeben and Kolozsvar. ¹¹⁵ The Romanian students numbered 107. In addition, to these, midwifery courses were occasionally offered at other locations. In 1903, the state hospital at Deva offered a two-months winter course, primarily in Romanian. The announcement in the Romanian weekly of Hunyad county read: "the language of instruction at the school is Romanian, and only if necessary would it become Hungarian or German. Let all villages where there are no trained midwives send one to study here, because they would be doing a good thing.'' ¹¹⁶

246

All of these schools, with the exception of the one at Naszod, were established by the churches. The oldest and most significant was the secondary school of Balazsfalva, since it had an impact not only on the Romanians of Hungary, but on those of Moldavia and Wallachia as well. Launched in 1754, it became a true center of Romanian cultural life within half a century.

Chronologically, it was followed by the Uniate School of Belenyes, founded by the Romanian Uniate Bishop of Nagyvarad, Samuel Vulcan, in 1828. Ten years later it was in full operation. The Romanian secondary school of Brasso was initiated by the Orthodox Bishop Andrei Saguna in 1851; it became a full-fledged high school by 1865. The first class of the secondary school of Naszod opened in 1863, and that of the junior secondary of Brad in 1869. Thus, when the Hungarian government took control over the country in 1867, three Romanian secondary schools were fully operational, while the ones at Naszod and Brad were in process of formation. The formation of the latter two was not hindered by the change in sovereignty: the secondary school at Naszod was fully operational by 1870, while the junior secondary at Brad had opened a year earlier.

These secondary schools proved to be a great financial burden for their sponsors even though each of them, with the exception of the one at Brasso, owned several thousand holds* of land. The school at Balazsfalva had the most solid financial foundation, based as it was upon the combined revenues from the nearly 10,000 holds of estates of the Balazsfalva Uniate archdiocese and on the Alexandru Sterca-Sulutiu Foundation. The Uniate school of Belenyes could rely on the revenues from the more than 100,000 holds of estates owned by the Uniate bishop of Nagyvarad. Although the diocese had other priorities, it took the school under its wings from the eighties on. The upkeep of the Foundation high school at Naszod was covered by estates totaling 12,254 holds owned by the borderland Cultural Foundation. The junior secondary school at Brad likewise had an estate of 2,416 holds which covered, albeit modestly, the greater part of its expenses. ¹¹⁷

The Andrei Saguna School had no solid financial foundation. Its expenses were borne by members of the Romanian parish of Brasso, who paid a regular contribution yearly. Nevertheless, these contributions came in rather irregularly, and sometimes not at all. Therefore the Romanian Orthodox parish of St. Nicolae turned to the Romanian government for support. At one time the parish had received estates

-----------------------------------

* One hold equals 1.23 acres.

247

from the Voivods of Moldavia and Wallachia. Now they requested regular financial contributions from the legal heirs of these Voivods, i.e. the Romanian government. From 1861 on the Romanian government regularly disbursed a certain sum to cover the expenses of the school each year. In 1875 Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, Agoston Trefort, prohibited by his directive 559/1875 the continued acceptance of the annual assistance provided by the Romanian government. Still, the assistance continued to come in, although in secret; but in 1898 this secret was disclosed and the Hungarian government launched an investigation. The investigation confirmed the fact and revealed the details of the Romanian transaction. Then the Hungarian government reached an agreement with the Romanian government regarding further assistance for the schools of Brasso. The Romanian government was to deposit almost one million crowns in the Hungarian Central Bank of Budapest, in the account of the church of St. Nicolae of Brasso. From 1900 the schools received an annual stipend of 38,000 lei from this account, forwarded by the Hungarian treasury. ¹¹⁸

The Romanian secondary schools were also helped by the numerous scholarships awarded to their students. The yearly contributions of Romanian associations, banks and foundations, as well as the regular salary adjustment disbursed by the Hungarian treasury after 1906, also increased the endowments. Foundations serving the cultural objectives of Greater Romania, such as the Godu Foundation, the Commonwealth of Karansebes, as well as smaller funds earmarked for scholarships covered the expenses of many hundreds of needy Romanian students each year. In the academic year 1906/07, for instance, almost half of the students of the Romanian boarding school of Belenyes had all or 50% of their expenses paid. In Brasso 35 of the 45 students making use of the mensa had their fare covered by contributions from the foundations. Greater or lesser sums were received by a number of students at other institutions as well.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940