THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

Romanian educational policies attempted to influence the spirit of the Hungarian denominational schools by specific measures as early as 1920. Although Hungarian remained the language of instruction in the first years, Romanian history, geography, government studies, as well as the Romanian language had to be introduced as subjects. In the Fall of 1923 Anghelescu issued his directive 100,088/1923 regarding the denominational primary schools, in which he codified his previous directives and determined the operation of these schools until the advent of the School Act. He prescribed that the Hungarian denominational schools could not admit children belonging to a different religion or speaking a different language, and required that the subjects in the curriculum of the public schools be taught. Of decisive importance was his measure:

that at all denominational schools where the language of instruction is a minority language the Romanian language (speaking, understanding, composition) be taught in Romanian in forms I and II for one period daily, whereas in forms III and IV Romanian language be taught during two periods daily (grammar, reading, interpretation composition), along with Romanian geography and history. ¹⁸

These subjects were to be introduced already in the academic year 1923-24, and those denominational schools whose faculty did not include teachers who could teach adequately in Romanian were required to request the delegation of public school teachers from the Ministry. Similarly, after the completion of the 6th grade, the prescribed "absolving" examination had to take place in front of a committee appointed by the district superintendency. The students had to pass the above-mentioned subjects in Romanian.

While it had taken the Hungarian government until 1879 to get around to requiring the instruction of the Hungarian language in the Romanian schools, that is twelve years after the change in sovereignty, Romanian educational policies required not only Romanian as a subject, but also three other subjects to be taught in Romanian already in the

524

fourth year of the regime. In vain did the Hungarian school authorities request that this requirement be postponed or suspended; the Romanian authorities insisted on applying these measures. In fact, they soon prepared the famous Act on Private Education which relegated the Hungarian denominational schools into the ranks of private schools and did away with their long-standing autonomy.

The Act on Private Education was adopted in December 1925 after long debates. It was published in Monitorul Oficial number 283 on December 22 and, in spite of the Hungarian complaint filed in Geneva, was immediately carried out. According to this Act the public schools had primary responsibility for the instruction of children, although private schools were allowed. Private schools could be maintained by private individuals or by communities, with a permit from the Ministry. The Ministry was to supervise the private schools continuously. The language of instruction at private schools attended by children of Romanian ethnic parents would have to be Romanian. The language of instruction attended by children whose parents were of other than Romanian ethnic background would be determined by the entity in charge of the school. These schools may only admit children whose language is identical with the language of the school. In Jewish private schools the language of instruction could be either Romanian or Yiddish. The language of instruction at monastery schools would be Romanian. But whatever the language of instruction, Romanian language, as well as geography, history, and government studies in Romanian were compulsory subjects. Private schools were only authorized to issue certificates, not diplomas. Under certain conditions the Ministry could grant accreditation. Once accreditation has been obtained the private school may issue valid report cards. The pupils at unaccredited schools would be considered as private pupils who would have to undergo the prescribed year-end examination in front of public school teachers. Private students could not be admitted even to accredited private schools.

The teachers at private schools were expected to be familiar with the Romanian language, and this knowledge would be constantly tested by government authorities. Private school teachers could not exercise their profession without prior authorization from the Ministry. Their old certificate or license had to be validated by passing examinations in Romanian language and the geography, history, and government of Romania, all in Romanian. Should the government inspectors find, even upon passing the examination in Romanian language, that the teacher could not speak the language properly, they would be required to take a language course or lose their license. One of the conditions for

525

obtaining accreditation on the part of the school was that there be at least two full-time tenured teachers.

It is clear from all this that the Hungarian denominational schools lost all their autonomy as a consequence of the Act on Private Education. By requiring that four subjects be taught in Romanian these schools now became bilingual. The hiring and employment of faculty was likewise taken away from the ecclesiastic officials in charge of the school. The teaching of the so-called four Romanian national subjects required the most effort on the part of both teachers and students and made it all the more difficult to instruct in the other subjects that could be taught in their mother tongue. The Act set a limit on the number of students that could be admitted to private schools, it required the introduction of the state curriculum, and subjected the private schools entirely to government control. The only aspect of the former autonomy that the church officials were allowed to retain was to provide the financial means for maintaining the school; for even the textbooks in use at private schools had to be authorized beforehand by the Ministry.

In addition to the Act on Private Education, the condition of the Hungarian denominational schools was also determined by the Act of 1924 dealing with public primary schools. Especially those measures of the Act which required that children of Romanian background be taught at schools where the language of instruction was exclusively Romanian, and the requirement stipulated under paragraph 161, according to which the communities were responsible for the upkeep of primary schools, had dire consequences. In practice the article was interpreted to mean that the communities were responsible for the construction and equipment of the school, as well as for its heating, light, and maintenance. Thus the residents of those communities that had a denominational school in addition to the public school had to bear the burden of maintaining two schools, which in very many places led to the closing down of the denominational school.

Article 159 of the Act on Schools was yet another heavy burden on the schools of the Hungarian areas. This article codified the directive issued earlier under number 40.771/1924 which provided privileges to Romanian teachers who moved to certain counties of the country. It provided a 50% salary increment, preferential promotions, moreover the prospect of obtaining a lot for the construction of a home. The counties concerned included Bihor, Salaj, Satu Mare, Maramures, Odorheiu, Ciuc, Trei-Scaune, Mures-Turda, Turda-Aries, and Hunedoara, as well as other counties of Romania inhabited predominantly by Russians or Bulgarians. The teachers in this so-called cultural zone were obliged, according to the provisions of Article 159, to remain with some school

526

in this zone for a minimum of four years, in exchange for the 50% pay increment, promotional preferment, and a moving allowance that was equivalent to three months pay. Those who committed themselves to settle permanently in the area would be promoted every three years, and would receive 10 hectares of land for resettlement.

The debate regarding the establishment of this cultural zone became continuous. It was interpreted in various ways by the Romanian authorities and certain specialists in educational affairs. According to the Article, the objective of the measure was "to increase the intensity of the teaching of Romanian in areas with a mixed population." When the National Hungarian party filed a complaint with the League of Nations on September 2, 1930, against this cultural zone, the official response of the Romanian government was that this zone "referred exclusively to Romanian inhabitants, and not at all to Hungarians.'' ¹⁹ The Romanian sector of the population in the Szekely areas had been, according to the assertion of the Romanian government, kept uneducated by the Hungarians in former times, and most illiterates in the region came likewise from the ranks of the Romanians. Thus the Romanian government had established this cultural zone primarily for the sake of the Romanian masses. Proof of this was the provision that the preferential treatment accorded to teaching personnel would retain in effect for only ten years. Silviu Dragomir, university professor and leader of the minority government of 1938, noted in his French language publication, written in 1934 for the benefit of readers abroad and published at state expense, that:

this cultural zone is designed solely to rectify the wrongs committed against the Romanian people in the past, since the Romanians in these counties had been deprived of the benefits of public education. The fact that the three counties where the Szekelys live in compact masses are included in this zone does not alter the objectives of the law. Nobody wants to Romanianize the Szekelys more than anyone else. ²⁰

Three years later August Caliani, the director of the department of private education in the Romanian Ministry of Public Education, asserted in connection with the cultural zone, in an article in the French language periodical of Astra titled Revue de Transylvanie, that this zone was aimed primarily at the Szekelys; the Szekelys who had been neglected by the Romanian governments were to acquire a deeper culture.

527

Thus there is contradiction even in the declarations meant for consumption abroad. But we may easily discover the reasons for the contradictions in the statements exchanged by the Romanian educational authorities and the Romanian faculty in the Szekely region.

Thus Nicolae Diaconescu, a teacher from Ciumani, in the Gazeta Ciucului, and Iuliu Muresan, a teacher from the county of Odorheiu, in the periodical of the Romanian teachers of that county, pointed out the real purposes of the cultural zone. It was the common opinion of the two teachers that the objective of the cultural zone was to educate the Szekelys as Romanian citizens and to awaken their Romanian national consciousness. Their opinion is confirmed by Cretu, the chief inspector of Romanian administration, who uttered the following statement at the general assembly of public school teachers in the county of Ciuc on January 23,1937: "The cultural zone was established by the Romanian educational system in order to promote the process of Romanianization even at the price of sacrifices.'' A great task awaits the corps of public school teachers in the Szekely region. The Szekely children have to be imbued with the historical fact, even on the benches of the kindergarten, that "you are not what you think you are, but rather the alienated child of a brave nation albeit for long under foreign yoke." According to Cretu only two things hampered the process of Romanianization: the lack of statistics reflecting reality, and foreign influence from abroad. The Szekely and Hungarian people believe they number two million. This is deliberate distortion. "There are one million Hungarians living here, and there are no Szekelys." The state regards the Szekelys as a fellow-nation and will stand by their side at all cost. "This land is the sacred land of our ancestors," added Cretu. "Our ancestors lived among its rivers, mountains, and valleys, and their descendants are the Szekelys. By means of the roaring waters of the Olt and Mures rivers, we send the message that we will not abandon our work until assimilation has been completed.'' ²¹

Indeed, both these measures of the Act on Primary Education and the Act on Private Education essentially aimed at the Romanianization of Hungarian children. This was the reason the Hungarian ecclesiastic officials objected to the laws. But even Romanian public opinion was not uniform in its assessment of the two laws. Many disapproved of the provisions of the Act on Private Education, especially as regards bilingual education and the compulsory teaching of history, geography and government in Romanian. One Romanian high school teacher objected to the law on the pages of the Adevarul, already at the time it was proposed. He noted that the law:

528

included provisions which the Romanian schools of Transylvania had not known under the old (Hungarian) regime. There are certain regulations which disregard all pedagogical considerations, and the application of which would amount to spiritual torture for children of minority groups. There are so many restrictions and prohibitions that in some places one gets the impression of reading the house-rules in a jail. Thus a new quarrel is evolving between us and the Hungarians, only this time they are the ones who are oppressed. ²²

During the parliamentary debate over the law even Iorga opposed the new measures. He noted in his speech that in this law Anghelescu:

had fused three different laws together: laws regarding private, denominational, and minority instruction. He did this because he dislikes denominational schooling and is even less attracted toward the minority schools: wherever there is a denominational school he wants to open a public school as well. My question is: for whose benefit? Not for me, not for you, but for the residents of the community in question. Then why don't they have the right, on the basis of the tax they have to pay for their school, to decide themselves what kind of school they desire? ²³

Later, when the law was adopted and the Hungarian churches filed a complaint in Geneva, at the League of Nations, because of its anti- Hungarian provisions, Iorga once again expressed his opinion against the Act on Private Education in Paris: ,,I was and still am against the Act on Private Education, because I am against all systems that agitate and are useless. Let me reassure you that Anghelescu's school system will never be translated into reality.,' ²⁴

As Iorga was expressing these opinions the fate of the complaint filed by Hungarian churches in Geneva was about to be decided. The specialists of Anghelescu's ministry attempted to weaken the arguments of the Hungarian churches with the same arguments they had used during the parliamentary debates. In its memorandum the Romanian government explained that the provision regarding the teaching of the country's geography and history in Romanian was included only for the sake of practicing the language. To enhance the weight and significance of this assertion the government did not hesitate, in its memorandum, to distort the former laws of Albert Apponyi. It asserted that during the Hungarian regime the Apponyi laws required that five subjects be taught in Hungarian in the primary schools sponsored by the Romanian

529

churches. In fact, the document submitted to the committee of the League of Nations went so far as to claim:

The laws of Count Apponyi in 1907 also had as their objective to ruin Romanian education by means of pay adjustments. In those cases where the Romanian schools accepted the state subsidy, no matter how small the amount, they were compelled to teach the history, geography, and government of Hungary in Hungarian, and even mathematics, general geography and history (that is seven subjects, including the Hungarian language).

It repeated further on:

As regards the subjects to be taught in Romanian it should be noted that while under Hungarian rule five subjects were taught in Hungarian, under Romanian rule there are only three /mathematics and government were omitted/, and it is only the geography and history of the country that are to be taught in Romanian, whereas general geography and history are taught in the minority language.

The memorandum submitted by the government hoped to increase the impact of this presentation by adding "that Transylvania had never known a more magnanimous school system than under the Romanians." In contrast to the magnanimous Romanian government the memorandum described the Apponyi laws as "not only reactionary, anti- pedagogical and anti-humanist" from a cultural point of view, "but simply and clearly monstrous, distorting the very notion concept of an education." ²⁵

Of course, the League of Nations did not have specialists who might have been able to assess the Romanian arguments in the light of actual historical data. After all, to assess the Apponyi laws they would have needed a knowledge of Hungarian and Romanian, and a comparative study of the sets of laws. There was not a single person with these qualifications in the circles of the League of Nations in Geneva. Anghelescu had an easy time to convince the League regarding his assertions, as he did during his justification of the proposed law in front of the Romanian parliament. At that time, in order to have the provisions of the law regarding the instructions of three subjects in Romanian in addition to the Romanian language accepted, he referred to the already quoted work of Onisifor Ghibu, asserting that under

530

Hungarian rule five subjects had to be instructed in Hungarian in the Romanian schools. The bias or sincerity of his reference are indicated by a comparison of Anghelescu's quote with the actual text.

The quote from Anghelescu stated that "Parochial schools enjoying state support must introduce five subjects in the Hungarian language (Hungarian, history, geography, civics and mathematics.)" ²⁶

According to the original text:

The state also supports parochial schools if these qualify in accordance with the conditions set by the state... But in this case the class schedule of five subjects (Hungarian, history, geography civics, and mathematics) is set by the state. ²⁷

The Minister also used a quote taken from another book to bolster his argument in front of the Romanian lawmakers:

The law establishes the salary of parochial school teachers and their teaching assignments. It prescribes that only those non-Hungarian parochial teachers could receive state aid, who teach Hungarian, mathematics, history, geography and civics in Hungarian and according to the prescribed class periods and teaching plans. ²⁸

The original text stated:

Only those teachers employed by non-Hungarian public and parochial schools can receive state aid, ... who... also fulfill the following conditions: if in the above mentioned schools they teach Hungarian, mathematics, the geography and history of the homeland as well as civics... in accordance with teaching schedules. ²⁹

There is an obvious contradiction between the quotes used by Anghelescu and the actual text in the sources, and this contradiction stems from a distortion of the original text. As we have seen, during the Hungarian regime only the Hungarian language had to be taught in Hungarian in the Romanian schools, while the other four subjects were studied at first in their mother tongue and later summarized in short Hungarian compositions during the Hungarian language class. We have also seen that the Romanian school authorities had noted several times that the Romanian schools were not bilingual, and they strongly reprimanded those teachers who either misinterpreted the law

531

or were forced by some abusive superintendent to teach Hungarian more extensively. Thus it is clear that by distorting the wording of the Apponyi laws Anghelescu attempted to present his own Romanianizing law, which contained far more delicate matters than the Apponyi laws, in a milder light to the public opinion within the Romania as well as abroad. ³⁰

Under the impact of the Romanian arguments the complaint filed with the League of Nations resulted in a fiasco for the initiators of the complaint. Although the committee expressed its opinion that Article 9 of the Minority Treaty had not been completely respected, it nevertheless came to the conclusion "that the final text which includes the explanations provided by the Romanian government is of a nature that should assuage those who filed the complaint." ³¹ In final analysis, the committee charged with examining the complaint did not condemn the procedure of the Romanian government, and thus the complaint proved to be in vain.

The instructions regarding the application of the Act on Private Education fixed the situation and functioning of the Hungarian denominational schools. From then on the spirit of the schools was inevitably influenced by the constant struggle with the subjects to be taught in Romanian. The Hungarian children were forced to devote most of their time to learning geography, history, and government in a language that was foreign to them, although they barley knew the concepts of these subjects even in their own language. The frequent visits of the government inspectors rendered it impossible to resort to freer methods of teaching, hence the Hungarian denominational schools were able to represent the Hungarian spirit only in its most watered down form. Nevertheless, they offered at least one benefit: the Hungarian children who attended these schools learnt how to read and write in their mother tongue. This was a significant contribution, in contrast to instruction at public schools, which was exclusively in Romanian. Unfortunately, because of the measures by the Romanian school authorities, fewer and fewer students were able to attend denominational schools.

One of the most serious difficulties facing the denominational schools under the regime of the Act on Private Education was to obtain accreditation and permission to function. According to terms of the law, no school could operate without permission. The students at those schools that lacked accreditation had to take their year end examination in front of antagonistic public school teachers. Thus it is understandable that every school strove to satisfy the requirements for accreditation. Unfortunately, the satisfaction of the requirements was

532

not quite enough, because securing accreditation was a complex procedure. The applications filed after the law was passed usually lay on someone's desk in the Ministry for years. Of the 358 schools of the Reformed Church only 139 enjoyed accreditation as of 1931, whereas 128 failed in having their status settled. For several years after 1933 not a single application was acted upon. Although applications were filed by the school concerned and by the presidential council of the diocese, the result was the same. In vain did Fizesul, Gherlei, Harau, Malnas, or Ercea Mare (because of censorship the Hungarian names of these communities could not be used even in the official ecclesiastic reports prepared exclusively for Hungarians) request accreditation over and over again, the Ministry rejected the request. "In vain do we request action on the applications not yet settled, we did not receive a favorable decision. The applications filed by new schools, or those schools that had been closed down but wanted to reopen, were treated similarly." ³² Nor did the situation improve in later years. Securing accreditation became even more difficult after 1935. Often the documentation submitted disappeared; at other times, accreditation was denied on the recommendation of the superintendent of education. If in a particular village the retention of the recently established Romanian public school was declared a matter of national interest, the request for accreditation remained unsettled for ever. Fifteen years after the Act on Private Education was promulgated, that is, at the beginning of 1940, 114, or one-third of the Reformed Church's schools were still without accreditation. This meant that the parents of children in these schools had to bear a much heavier burden than others; moreover, their children were constantly exposed to the risk of being flunked by malevolent Romanian public school teachers, because if the school was not accredited, the students had to be examined by the teachers of the public school. These usually performed their task in groups of three. They charged a 480 lei fee in the villages, and 540 lei in the towns. They examined twenty students per day. The teachers at the denominational school could only participate on these committees as advisors. In 1934 and 1935 the work of these committees cost the parents and the parishes - that is, to the treasury of the church district upwards of one hundred thousand lei in expenses.

After 1935, as the Romanianizing tendencies of the school authorities grew from year to year, the parents' attachment to their denominational school increased proportionately. The reports of the Reformed Church on the subject provide a touching picture of the enormous efforts of the impoverished Hungarian communities to maintain their denominational school. Between 1933 and 1935 new

533

classrooms or new school buildings were constructed in 37 communities. The construction work or remodeling cost altogether 3,813,000 lei the following year the spirit of sacrifice manifested itself even more beautifully. Between 1935 and 1937 twenty-one parishes requested a new post for teacher, whereas five parishes applied for permission to open a new school. The Ministry rejected the majority of the requests without explanation. According to the report from 1939 the attitude of the Ministry did not change. Between 1937 and 1939 they rejected 33 applications for permission to open a new school and, even as a result of the more favorable atmosphere provided by the Minorities Statute, only five new schools were authorized and 25 schools received permission to hire additional faculty. As the report states:

the attention of our church district turned towards the denominational school in countless cases; they want new denominational schools, or additional faculty for their already existing schools. They even gladly accepted to undertake sacrifices for these purposes. The faithful at 46 Reformed communities sacrificed altogether 8,452,474 lei for the construction of new schools, the setting up of new classrooms, or for more significant remodeling, in money and in community labor. These figures are eloquent indeed! And what bitterness followed when, after the great efforts in these difficult times, the completed school was not granted permission to open. ³³

Although four subjects had to be taught in Romanian at these Hungarian denominational schools, and state entities tried to hamper the work of the schools and decrease the number of their pupils by all means at their disposal, including frequent inspections, the refusal to grant accreditation, strict examination procedures at the end of year, and the practice of name analysis, the Hungarian denominational schools continued to play an important role in most Hungarian villages. They could not harbor any kind of irredentist or anti-Romanian activity, but the pupils and the parents were conscious of being Hungarian and devoutly so. In most villages one of the greatest fears of the students was to be left out of the denominational school since, according to the law, the school could admit only a limited number. The supernumeraries had to be sent to the public school. Of course, at the beginning of each year there was a great deal of pushing and shoving at registration time, for the first-comers were assured of a place. In a certain village in Mures-Turda county, the heads of Reformed families spent the night in the courtyard of the school before registration to

534

make sure that their children would not be left out of the denominational schools as supernumeraries. ³⁴

We find similar examples of devotion to the denominational schools elsewhere. These cases provide clear proof of the fact that the population of the Hungarian villages espoused the cause of the denominational schools during the Romanian regime. Most of the estates owned by the dioceses were confiscated during the land reforms. The Hungarian population was forced to build and maintain Romanian churches and public schools. Yet, in spite of all this, the population brought enormous sacrifices for the sake of Hungarian schools. In the period 1920 to 1930 the budget for the Reformed primary schools was an average of 18 million lei a year, whereas after 1930 the average rose to 20 or 22 million. Our rough estimate would be that the Hungarian population under Romanian rule spent close to one billion lei for the expenses of primary schools. And the greater part of this enormous sum had to come from the pennies contributed by the impoverished Hungarian masses. ³⁵

During the last years of the Romanian regime (between 1934 and 1940) the development of Hungarian denominational schools came to a total halt. Only in a few instances did the Ministry of Education grant accreditation and issue documents authorizing the opening of a new school. The number of students diminished steadily. The misery of the teachers increased year by year. The amount of material to be taught was also constantly growing. Thus all factors were unfavorable to the Hungarian denominational schools and, in the last years of the regime, these institutions became isolated, condemned to perdition. Their stagnation was closely related to the situation of the Romanian public schools.

When the Governing Council of Sibiu took over the administration of schools in the formerly Hungarian areas, it defined the principles of public instruction in its directive number 1 of January 24, 1919. According to this directive, instruction at the public primary schools would take place in the language of the majority of the residents of the community, whereas parallel courses were to be set up wherever there were sufficient pupils to employ at least one teacher. In these parallel courses or classes the language of instruction would be the language of the local minority group. In accordance with the basic principles contained in the directive, Hungarian was retained as the language of

535

instruction in about 600 communities. In these communities the administration set up either schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction, or attached a Hungarian section to the Romanian schools. Romanian language, and the history, geography, and government of Romania were naturally taught in Romanian. At the beginning this was generally the case only where a sufficient number of Romanian ethnic teachers could be found. Since in the first years such teachers could not be found in sufficient number the state adopted some of the former Hungarian public school teachers who then took an oath of allegiance and served the state.

We can divide the history of Hungarian schools or Hungarian sections in state schools into three periods. The first period lasted until 1925, the second from 1925 to 1934, and the third from 1934 to 1940.

During the first period, from 1919 to 1924, the Hungarian schools or sections or classes attached to Romanian public schools were obviously designed to weaken the Hungarian denominational schools. By stressing Hungarian as the language of instruction, the authorities intended to entice children and parents from the Hungarian denominational schools. Therefore, in most places, the teachers in the Hungarian components of the Romanian schools did their best to have the denominational schools closed down. In many places the public school teacher of Hungarian ethnic background received employment simply on condition of being able to transfer the pupils from the Hungarian denominational schools. As mentioned, this was the cause of many of the closures. The Romanian government was not indifferent to the competition between the two school systems, especially after 1922. Unlike Hungary in former times, in Romania it never happened that the students or parents would boycott the state school which would be forced to close down on this account. Wherever there was competition between the Hungarian denominational and Romanian public school the Romanian authorities did not remain idle. The competition became unfair, because the process of name analysis and other compulsory measures were soon resorted to, as a consequence of which the Hungarian denominational school was closed down. It was mostly this process which led to the closing of hundreds of schools by the Minister of Education, Anghelescu in 1923-24.

An important process got under way in the Hungarian sections of the Romanian public schools after 1924. They began to introduce instruction exclusively in Romanian, at first in one or two places only, in city schools, then increasingly in the villages as well. ³⁶ Often the Hungarian sections were closed down simply by order of the superintendent. The approximately 600 Hungarian sections had

536

decreased to 248 by 1933, and the decrease did not stop there. As one of the Romanian chief superintendents, George Tulbure, noted in 1933, Romanian public opinion regarded the Hungarian sections as an anomaly.

The objective of the school is to serve the state... We must strive to make Romanian language, culture, science and art into a force that can dominate and conquer. Dominate not only our souls but the souls of all citizens of the country, regardless of ethnic origin. ³⁷

Accordingly, the Hungarian sections of public school decreased to only 112 by 1934, and to 44 by 1937, of which 17 were schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction and 27 had Hungarian sections; but even most of these were Hungarian on paper only, because in reality Romanian had become the language of instruction at these schools. Thus we can say that by 1938 instruction at all public schools took place exclusively in Romanian. ³⁸ The government committee on minorities set up at this time promised, as a consequence of discussions with the leaders of the Hungarian community of Romania, to establish once again Hungarian sections and Hungarian schools in the villages. Silviu Dragomir, chief government representative of minority affairs, informed Miklos Banffy about this commitment in the following terms:

It is my pleasure to inform you that by its decision 28.427/1939 of February 14 this year the Ministry of National Education ordered, as a result of our intervention, in those places that have a significant Hungarian population, and where school- age children reach the number stipulated by law, the establishment of Hungarian sections in public primary schools or schools with Hungarian as the language of instruction. The faculty at these schools will be composed on the basis of the provisions of Articles 113-115 and 126 of the law. Until the required teaching body is trained in teachers' colleges set up for the purpose, the existing faculty will be responsible for instruction at these schools, after passing a validation examination. ³⁹

As the letter makes clear there were not enough teachers to teach in Hungarian in the sections to be established, hence the teachers already at the schools were expected to teach the children's mother tongue. This commitment, however, was never realized.

537

The Minister, Anghelescu, required 151 villages with a Hungarian majority to build new schools. One aim of this measure was to make the Hungarian population neglect the denominational schools in their village by burdening them with the maintenance of two schools. Indeed, in many of the poorer villages the Hungarian population was unable to provide for two schools, and neglected the denominational one, leading to its closure. The measure elicited opposition even in Romanian circles. In the Romanian parliament, Ladislau Goldis, himself, criticized the measure, which had never been applied formerly under Hungarian control. He mentioned a community where it cost 500,000 lei to erect a new school. The community, too poor, refused to assume the responsibility for the expense, but the government compelled it to do so. "What will happen," asked Goldis, "if the peasant is unable to pay up? Will they auction away his horse and his cow in order to create the means necessary to educate his children?" ⁴⁰ The instance mentioned by Goldis happened in a Romanian village where the population was not burdened with having to maintain two schools simultaneously. We can imagine the difficulties faced in those Hungarian villages where, for a while, the population had to provide only for a denominational school until the executive order from the Minister, requiring the community to set up a public school as well.

The Hungarian population was equally burdened by the measures pertaining to the establishment of the cultural zone, and by the new public schools set up in most Szekely villages after 1933. The aim of the cultural zone was the Romanianization of the Hungarians, whereas the establishment of new public schools was intended to extend the framework of the cultural zone. In most places this led to the closing or decline of the Hungarian denominational school. Between 1926 and 1936 the number of public schools in the county of Ciuc increased from 55 to 104, those in Trei-Scaune from 101 to 119, and those in Odorhei from 101 to 151. A similar or perhaps even more pronounced increase took place at the kindergarten level. The public kindergartens served the purposes of Romanianization even better; the children returning from the kindergarten had to greet their parents, who knew not a word of Romanian, in Romanian. This ulterior motive explains how come the number of kindergartens increased in Ciuc county from 5 to 58, in Trei- Scaune from 27 to 76, and in Odorhei from 18 to 40, in the period from 1926 to 1936. Anghelescu indicated the purposes of the kindergarten in his justification:

By means of the kindergarten the children of these alienated Romanians will have their national consciousness awakened, and 538

we will win them back for Romania... By making it easier for the children to learn Romanian the kindergartens and child care centers perform Romanian cultural work.

In 1935 Anghelescu issued an order requiring the setting up of public primary schools in every village. Until then, in some villages of the Szekely region and other regions with a Hungarian majority there was nothing but a denominational school, since in mast of these villages there was not a soul with Romanian as a the mother tongue. Now the agencies of the Ministry of Education required the population of every village to set up a public school. This meant a great deal of worry, disadvantages and finally closure for the denominational school. For instance, at Tureni [Bikfalva], the public school was set up in 1935 in a former dance hall. It had no students, however; then the public school teacher and the notary demanded that the Reformed minister transfer 32 of his 68 students to the public school. The clergyman refused to grant the request. Then the notary and teacher themselves selected 24 students and drove them over into the public school. A few days later the transferred students returned to their denominational school in tears. Upon hearing this, Margineanu, the Romanian superintendent, came to the village on December 3. He inspected the public school, where he found only six pupils. Then he left an ultimatum to the board of the denominational school, to the effect that if 32 children were not transferred to the public school within three days, it will be closed down.⁴¹

A public school was set up at Atia [Atyha], in Odorhei county (a Roman Catholic community), as well. Until 1935 the community had a Catholic school with three teachers and 140 students. The new Romanian public school was set up in the community house. The Romanian teacher appointed to this school taught 28 pupils for the time being. The leaders of the community were ordered to have a public school constructed comparable to the denominational school or, if unable to do so, to hand over the denominational school to the state. Thus the community was forced to construct a public school at its own expense. The residents of Lupeni [Farkaslaka] were summoned to the community house where the Romanian leaders proposed to the general assembly to hand over the Roman Catholic school, along with its lot, for the sake of a Romanian public school. Several of the self-respecting faithful at the assembly rejected the proposal, strongly protesting against the attempt to take away the Roman Catholic school. Then the gendarmes who were present intervened and dragged the protesters to the station, where they were ruthlessly beaten to the point that one of them, Denes

539

Tamas, was unable to move for days. Finally a 120,000 lei surtax was assessed for the construction of the public school, and thus the school began to operate in this village as well.

Similar procedures were employed in the county of Ciuc. In 1935 at Madaras [Csikmadaras] Leonte Oprea, the principal of the public school, with the help of the Romanian authorities, began to fine those parents whose children were studying at the denominational school He continued this illegal procedure in spite of all protests, until the denominational school lost all its students. For a long time the objects placed in escrow during the fining were not returned. Later the principal told the parents that if they agreed to sign the document he had composed, their property would be returned. The parents, knowing no Romanian, signed the document, believing it was a request for the return of their property. The document, however, was a declaration requesting that their children be transferred to the public school. Anghelescu boastfully presented the document in parliament by way of proof that the Szekely population had grown tired of denominational education. The final outcome of the fining procedure introduced at Madaras was that on September 15, 1936, the doors of the Roman Catholic school were closed and sealed for lack of pupils. At the same time the community was forced to set up a public school at a cost of about 2 million lei. ⁴²

Parents and children were repelled by public schools, not only because of Romanian as the language of instruction and the extra expense involved, but also because of the activities of the Romanian teachers sent to the so-called cultural zone in the Szekely region. These teachers were not choosy as to the means employed. Unfamiliar with Hungarian they could not communicate with the children. Most of the time they resorted to corporal punishment in order to encourage the children to greater progress in learning Romanian. Elsewhere - for instance, in the kindergarten at Lupeni - the Romanian kindergarten teacher, who knew no Hungarian, tried to communicate with the children by means of an interpreter. In some places the Romanian teachers dressed the Hungarian children in Romanian national costumes, including boots and loose-sleeved shirts, demanding that they wear these on holidays. ⁴³ They were not allowed to speak Hungarian even amongst themselves in the courtyard and classrooms of the school, and whoever forgot the rule was brutally flogged, or received strict punishment. In many cases the system to which the children were subjected became the topic of parliamentary debate. In 1934 Elemer Gyarfas queried Anghelescu on account of the activities of one Ioan Bota, a public school teacher in Corund [Korond], part of the cultural

540

zone. In early 1934 Bota had ordered the children to bring to school two meters of linen and colored wool in order to make a Romanian flag. Some of the poorer children did not have the means to purchase the material, hence could not comply with the teacher's order. Bota then subjected them to a terrible beating. The parents turned to the Hungarian Party for remedy. Gyarfas queried the Minister on behalf of the Party, and the latter ordered an investigation on site. Anghelescu communicated the results with Gyarfas under document number 87974/1934. The investigation revealed that the complaints of the parents were justified:

Ioan Bota applied not only disciplinary measures authorized by law but corporal punishment as well and, what is even sadder, as he admits himself and as the attached medical report proves, he exceeded all measures in applying such punishment, beating some of the students until they became incapacitated. ⁴⁴

At the conclusion of the report to Gyarfas, he mentioned the possibility of having Bota transferred from Corund. Nothing of the sort happened in 1935. Then Gyarfas renewed his query, upon which Anghelescu declared that, by his directive 786/1935 he had removed Ioan Bota from public teaching. Nevertheless, the directive was still not carried out, since the brutal teacher was still teaching at his post in 1936. We can only imagine the suffering of the children and parents who had been requesting the transfer of the brutal teacher for over three years. Finally, after renewed protests, Bota indeed departed from the scene in September 1937.

The activities of the Romanian teachers in the county of Ciuc were often similar. The "cultural zone" teacher at Racul [Csikrakos], Stefan Barlea, forbade the children from using the old manner of greeting "praised be the Lord." Under number 6837/1933 the Catholic bishopric denounced Barlea at the Ministry on this account, requesting that he be ordered to desist. Barlea became a center of attention of the Romanians. A collaborator of the paper Universul asked whether the denunciation was true. "It is true," the teacher answered,

but this does not mean I am against the form of greeting. I only object to the children's greeting in Hungarian. I would not allow the students to speak Hungarian in school or on the street. I did not come here, as a Romanian, in order to preserve the minority population's often stupid manner of thinking which, moreover, is

541

dangerous for the state, but rather to introduce our healthy concepts and the official language into public awareness.

Under the bilingual system forced upon them, the Hungarian denominational schools, in a state of constant insecurity, struggled with serious handicaps. The cumbersome and mostly ill-intentioned procedures governing the granting of accreditation rendered their situation most insecure. Children and teachers were subordinated to the teachers of Romanian public schools. The parents undertook enormous sacrifices to maintain the denominational schools, since they had to bear the burden of the expenses of the public schools as well. In

542

many places they were no longer able to cope with the double burden of maintaining schools and the persistent fines they were subjected to, hence the denominational school had to close its doors. Where the population undertook all sacrifices and exhibited unfailing devotion to its school, it usually managed to keep the denominational school going. It is true, however, that about two-thirds of these schools in 1930, and about 35% as late as the last years of the regime, were unable to obtain accreditation. As a result the parents had to bear separate expenses for year-end examinations, and the pupils at these schools were always in danger of being transferred to the public school. As for the public school teachers, they secured an income amounting to many millions from the pennies contributed by the impoverished Hungarian population for these special examinations throughout the Romanian regime. Nevertheless, the Hungarian denominational schools did manage to teach the children to read and write in their mother tongue, in spite of the bilingual system and the lack of accreditation. Moreover a profound and firm relationship evolved between the teaching corps, the churches, and their followers, which became a source of immeasurable strength for the suffering Hungarian population. It is true that the student body at the denominational schools involved no more that 26% of Hungarian school- age children, while three-fourth of them were forced into the mainly Romanian public schools. In the long run, however, studying in Romanian schools was of no benefit to them, or to the Romanian state. This fact was noted by some of those Romanians who were more objective and better acquainted with the problems of the nationalities. As mentioned, Nicholae Iorga decidedly condemned Anghelescu's school policies on several occasions, and even the more intelligent Romanian educational leaders spoke out more than once against forced Romanianization. In the first year after the introduction of the culture zone system, the Romanian superintendent of schools in the county of Mures-Turda noted, in his official report, that it was hopeless to send Romanian teachers who could speak not a word of Hungarian into communities with a purely Hungarian population.

We may note after one year's experience, that these appointments were a mistake. For they sent teachers to communities where, except maybe for the notary and the gendarme, not a soul could speak Romanian, and who had never heard Hungarian in all their lives, and were even less familiar with the customs and ideas of the population among whom they came to work. Consequently these teachers, even if dedicated, struggle like fish out of water to make the children understand

543

a small part of the many words they pronounce. They have openly and sincerely, albeit discouragedly, declared that it is impossible to obtain any results, since the children know no Romanian. Thus the teachers are destined to remain isolated in their villages, even though they were called upon to be become the leaders of all public movements. ⁴⁵

The Romanian school superintendent stationed near the border, in the Oradea region, Dan Pompilius, condemned the aggressive Romanian educational policies in similar terms. Returning from his inspection tour in late 1926 he used harsh words to describe the impossible prescriptions of the Act on Private Education in front of a group of Hungarian journalists at Oradea:

the requirement that third grade primary school students learn the geography of the country, as well as take 29 hours of history, in a language completely unknown to them is absurd, anti- didactic, and does not even have the excuse of ignorance. Just take a look at a school where the language of instruction is Hungarian and the struggle surrounding this unknown vocabulary. Those little ones exhibit an energy beyond their powers in the process of elaborating a whole from a mass of words they do not understand, which they naively refer to as a lesson; but that which they recite with an awful pronunciation. No Romanian or Hungarian can understand a word. This is a dizzy exercise in memorization! Is this the way we expect the child's historical and geographical notions to increase, when he cannot even say in his mother tongue what he is expected to recite in Romanian, without mistake. ⁴⁶

The teachers of Romanian background who were assigned to teach in the Hungarian villages of the borderland had to agree with these observations of the Romanian superintendent. In February 1927, at the conference of the cultural circle of Romanian teachers under the chairmanship of Ioan Barbulescu, they declared that even from a didactic point of view it is important that the geography and history of Romanian be taught in the mother tongue. ⁴⁷

A few months later, in April 1927 the Romanian royal superintendents held their convention. At this district convention of superintendents the participants declared, on the basis of their analysis of the experiences, that the national subjects (i.e. Romanian geography, history, and government) should be taught in the mother tongue of the children in

544

the minority schools, both denominational and public, from the first semester of the school-year 1927-28, on. In the following semester the students could go over the same material in short summary sentences in Romanian. This resolution was also approved by the chief superintendent who was present at the convention. The Minister of Religious Affairs and Education, Anghelescu, however, did not go along with the resolution, and prohibited all experiments in this direction, even if pedagogically sound. ⁴⁸

Yet the acceptance and application of this resolution would have been all the more warranted because by then, even foreign circles had turned against the aggressive Romanianization entailed by Romanian educational policies. The American Committee in Defense of the Rights of Religious Minorities, which visited Romania in 1927 under the leadership of N. A. Atkinson, made meaningful observations regarding its experiences in Romania. In its English-language report printed in Boston the members of the committee noted "that the objective of Romanian educational policies was to Romanianize the Hungarian, German, and Russian children, and thereby the future generations." They described in detail the attitude of the authorities oppressing the Hungarian schools.

Administrative pressures, the denial of accreditation, compulsory knowledge of Romanian, restrictions on the autonomy of schools, numerous interferences in the determination of the curriculum, the hiring of teachers and the admission of students, moreover the antagonistic supervision of the schools, the unworthy spirit in which examinations are conducted, all this serves to destroy the minority schools. The laws of 1925 regarding the minorities embody a narrow-minded and oppressive nationalist policies. ⁴⁹

Two years later the educational expert of the Romanian National Peasant Party, Ghita Pop, member of parliament, who had been sent abroad by his party to study minority issues, made a statement regarding the Act on Private Education to a newspaper in Cluj.

The present bilingual system is misguided. In my opinion the main purpose of instruction is to acquire knowledge, not to learn Romanian. I say this as a good Romanian who has not forgotten that we have responsibilities, as universal human beings, towards culture, regardless of our nationality. Undoubtedly we Romanians approve the idea of the minorities learning the

545

language of the state. But we must not resort to force in teaching the language. Only instruction in the mother tongue can lead to membership in the community of human beings. I consider it a big mistake to send teachers who do not speak Hungarian into the Hungarian areas, since it would make it appear that the only purpose of learning is to become familiar with the Romanian language and neglect all other subjects. Because no matter how accomplished the teachers are, if the children do not understand them the learning process becomes illusory, to the great spiritual detriment of the state as well as of the minority concerned. In my opinion bilingualism is to be condemned in general. It is not possible to teach in two languages in a school. This of course does not mean that Romanian language may not be taught as a subject. In my opinion the objective of a school is to include the nation concerned into the human community, and not to exclude it from that community. And this can only be achieved by instruction in the mother tongue. The purpose of the school is not to deculturize the minorities, unlike what the chauvinists pretend. Therefore anyone who has sincerely given up all attempts to denationalize, without reservations, will easily agree that there is no sense in bilingual education, as it can only serve the purpose of denationalizing. The denominational schools certainly have a right to state subsidies. If the minorities participate in assuming the burdens of taxation then they are also entitled to its support in appropriate measure. ⁵⁰

These objective words of profound wisdom were but voices in the wilderness which found no echo in Romania. Circles controlling Romanian public opinion were demanding the Romanianization of the minorities with increasing passion, and not even the National Peasant Party dared confront this powerful pressure. When the Party came to power in 1928, it did nothing to repeal the laws promoted by Anghelescu. It did take a friendly step: in 1929 it earmarked a small subsidy to assist the impoverished Hungarian faculty at denominational schools. The step, however, was not repeated the following year and the Hungarian teachers had to wait another ten years until they received a small sum once again in 1939. No Romanian government dared touch the Romanianization measures. As we have seen, in 1934 Anghelescu made these measures even stricter. The new law on primary schools voted in 1939 preserved the bilingual system in the Hungarian denominational schools, and Hungarian children continued to study four

546

subjects in Romanian, a language alien to them, in the schools maintained out of their pennies. The number of hours taught in Romanian amounted to 22 or 25. At some grade levels there were days of the week when the children had to take four out of the five hours of classes in Romanian.

As long as the Anghelescu laws were in effect during the Romanian regime the cause of primary education for Hungarians served the ends of forced Romanianization. The basic principles advocated by Anghelescu remained unchanged in spite of all the modifications and amendments to the laws, inasmuch as they expressed the desires of chauvinistic opinion in Romania. The application of the principles of Romanianization could not be swayed either by the Hungarian and Romanian criticisms from the inside, or by negative comments from abroad. The evolution of Hungarian denominational schools was paralyzed for the sake of Romanianization, bringing about measures that had been completely unknown to the Romanian schools of Hungary in former times.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940