Stefan Pascu: A History of Transylvania

The revenge by Vienna hit the Hungarians hard. Seventy-two officers were condemned to death, as well as 25 civilians. These were, however, not executed but put into jail, with 64 other civilians, for long terms. ¹⁸⁷ The Szeklers were punished most severely and collectively, because their resistence delayed considerably the occupation of Transylvania by the Austrian army. The Saxon Franz Salmen and the Rumanian bishop Andrei Saguna, on the other hand, received medals for their help in defeating the revolution.

General taxation was introduced, with many new taxes. But the presence of the large army in the country caused also great damage and much suffering to the population. German was systematically introduced into the administration down to the village level. ¹⁸⁸ Cultural control was introduced: newspapers could appear only with the authorization by the chief police of the Empire and the permission of the authorities was necessary even for theatre pieces to be performed, etc.

The Saxon autonomy, however, did not fit into the centralized state that Vienna planned to create; the Saxon seats were reorganized into counties in such a way that several Rumanian areas were attached to them and at the same time, some areas inhabited by Saxons were put to counties inhabited mostly by Rumanians. This was another expression of the divisive policy of the Habsburg government.

The Rumanian army units were dissolved. Rumanian clerks were sought but in the beginning, they were few; in 1860, only at most 300 sufficiently educated Rumanian civil servants existed in Transylvania.

The Hungarians were those who had suffered most in the post-revolutionary period. Immediately afterwards, two thirds of the Hungarians of Transylvania were either conscripted as common soldiers into the imperial army, were in jail or had emigrated. The liberal petty nobility was passive, and the urban population and the peasants followed their example. This was true also of the Rumanian public functionaries in areas where both Hungarians and Rumanians lived side by side. (A characteristic region in this respect was the county Beszterce-Naszód [Bistrita-Nasaud]). Many Hungarians believed that a new revolution will liberate the country, and such plans were really forged: the Makk (a former colonel) - Horváth - Gál (the government commissioner of the county Háromszék in 1848) conspiracy against Austrian rule in 1851. The authorities discovered it and the conspirators were executed.

During the revolution of 1848, the serfs were liberated, and 70 - 80% of the peasants became owners of a small or medium-sized land plot. It is true that several landlords tried to get back some parts, particularly forests, but this did not change the general trend: the situation of the peasants became much better. ¹⁸⁹ It is estimated that in Transylvania and in the Partium, 78% of the serfs were liberated with compensation given to the landlords by the state. There were totally 974.846 people, who have received 921.430 hectares (2.295.500 English acres), the majority of all arable land. 80% of this land became the property of Rumanian peasants. (5.158 landowners received from the state 38,348.748 Florins as compensation, ¹⁹⁰ but the economic situation of the landlords after the defeat of the revolution was so bad, that a large part of this money was used to pay debts.) The proportion of those peasants who were themselves obliged to compensate the landlord was much higher in the Szekler land. ¹⁹¹

The Charter of October (1860) reconstructed the local autonomy. The empire was centralized. The counties of Nasaud and Fagaras had Rumanian administrations, and two other counties had Rumanian Lord Lieutenants. For the first time in history, Rumanians were permitted to reach a leading position in the Saxon "Kings territory" (although there were only four of them at this time). There, the Gubernium, where Hungarians played an important role, helped the Rumanians.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the amount of land owned was totally inadequate to support a family.

This is not a correct description of the situation.

A radical change in the life of the Rumanians living in Transylvania occurred in 1848, with the liberation of the serfs. It was the middle nobility who forced this reform, which thus was realized in Transylvania earlier than in Russia (1861) and in Moldavia and Muntenia (1864). As stated for example by Petre Suciu: ¹⁹² after 1848, "the economic situation of the Transylvanian peasantry was tolerable, in certain areas even prosperous." The political setting contributed to this: in cases of dispute, the Austrian authorities judged regularly against the Hungarian middle nobility and in favour of the Rumanians, because they were on the Austrian side during the revolution.

In certain territories, the Rumanians were able to build up, in one or two decades, rich farms: around Arad, in the areas of the former frontier guards (these were dissolved in 1851); around Brassó and Nagyszeben. The situation in northern Transylvania was worse because, among other things, there were more big estates there. But even there, the Austrian authorities helped much more the Rumanian peasants than the Hungarians in Kalotaszeg or the Szeklers, because of the above mentioned reasons.

According to Ioan Slavici (Rumanian author,1848-1925), the Rumanian peasantry was quite strong at the time of the creation of the monarchy. They did not bother much about politics but were mainly interested in acquiring more land and a better living standard. It was essentially the same for them whether Transylvania remained autonomous or united with Hungary. ¹⁹³

On pp. 220 - 221, Pascu describes the Transylvanian diet in Sibiu in 1863. This diet cannot be considered as a Parliament of the Transylvanian Rumanians. It was rather a means for the goverment in Vienna in its endevour to get information about how the nationalities would relate to certain parts of a possible agreement with the Hungarians.

Pascu talks about the autonomy of Transylvania in the period in question in categorical imperative. This is not correct, since Vienna ruled over the country directly, but considered it tacitly as a region belonging to Hungary. This is shown by such measures as the integration of the system of the counties in Hungary to that of the Transylvanian system, and the transformation of the Szekler seats into counties. With the agreement of 1867, Vienna accepted the union with Hungary.

By elevating the Transylvanian Orthodox bishopric to an archbishopric, the Hungarians contributed to the detachment of the Rumanians from the Serbian Church, and helped the creation of an autocephal, Rumanian Orthodox Church.

The period between 1870 and the beginning of the 20th century was very prosperous for the Rumanians. Economy developed, many Rumanians gained their fortune during this time.

Emigrants were especially attracted to Moldavia and Tara Româneasca, where living conditions were better. In 1870, of 16.458 passports issued in Transylvania, 15.867 were for those areas and only 591 for other countries. In any case, most left illegally, without passports. In 1862, roughly 10.000 Szeklers emigrated to Moldavia and Tara Româneasca from the seats of Ciuc and Trei Scaune in southern Transylvania alone.

The number of passports issued is not the same as the number of emigrants. This appears also from the sentence, referring to the Szeklers, where Pascu uses the word "emigrate": these Szeklers did really emigrate. Passports were in that time issued without any difficulty; one did not even need to explain the reason of asking for a passport.

The Szeklers fought most ardently for the revolution and were punished by Vienna in several ways. Thus, they did not receive the right to use the forests in the territory of the Szekler frontier guards - which the emperor gave to the Rumanians in the Banat and in Nasaud county. A large part of the Szekler territory lacked industry and also a railway, which was one of the reasons that the realization of the forests was more difficult there. The poorest among the Szeklers did not have wood and had no pastures, which was the cause of the emigration of many Szeklers. ¹⁹⁴

The situation of the great forests is interesting. After 1867, the Hungarian government could have made the vast forests in the territory of the former frontier guards state-owned, since most of the forests in Naszód (Nasaud) were, in 1861, declared to belong to the state of Austria. However, after the representatives of the local Rumanians asked to resolve the issue in favour of them, the Hungarian government declared, in 1872, its resignation from these forests in favour of the Rumanian school-establishment. ¹⁹⁵ This made possible the building of the Rumanian grammar-school in Naszód, in which the well-known Rumanian poet Gheorghe Cosbuc (1866 - 1918), and the writer Liviu Rebreanu (1885 - 1944) were educated.

The difference between the policy of liberal Hungary and that of the Rumanian state after 1919

The Private Properties of the Szeklers in Ciuc (Csíki Magánjavak) were created in the same time as those of the Rumanians in Naszód and Karánsebes and were by the Hungarian state after 1861 handled in the same way. However, the Rumanian state, after 1919, was not as magnanimous as the Hungarians were. According to the law in 1921, the properties of the Rumanians around Naszód (Nasaud) were not nationalized and this was later extended also to the properties around Karánsebes (Caransebes). At the same time, of the Private Properties of the Szeklers in Ciuc, 27.000 hold (15.390 hectares) of forests and pastures were confiscated. The directors of the Private Properties appealed against this totally illegal decision, but the state ruled, in 1923, that all these lands be confiscated. The explanation given was that the Szeklers had not owned these lands but used them only by usufructuary right which they, moreover, had lost by their "unfaithful revolt" in 1848 (!). The lands were thus the property of the Hungarian state after 1861 and the Rumanian state being the legal successor of Hungary, owns them today. - This outrageous infringement of lawful rights was first brought to the Rumanian Parliament but without any result. It was lastly brought to the United Nations, where the right of the Szeklers, after several years, was recognized. In spite of this, the Rumanian state did not give back the lands to their legal owners, the Szekler peasants. ¹⁹⁶

In 1884, a Rumanian priest wrote in the Tribuna that the Hungarian peasants in the central area, Mezoség (Câmpia Transilvaniei) were very poor, and the Rumanian peasants often gave them help to live from one day to the other. ¹⁹⁷ In the mountains of Maramures, however, the Rumanians too were poor, although many of them were able to supplement their revenue by grazing sheep.

In 1872, the bank Albina was created, with the aim to help Rumanian peasants to buy land. In the following two decades, another 50 Rumanian banks were founded. They worked according to national principles, i.e., they furthered the economy - especially by bying land - of the Rumanians by lending money at a very low interest. According to Slavici, "the land owned by Rumanians in the kingdom of Hungary was ten times as much in 1900 as in 1850." ¹⁹⁸ They also gave financial assistance to the Rumanian irredentist associations Astra and, later, the Liga Culturala Româneasca.

The Austro-Hungarian Central Bank, as well as a number of banks in Budapest supported the Rumanian banks with granting loans at "prime rate", which enabled these institutions to offer low cost loans to Rumanian peasants. If these banks had not done this, - for example because of national prejudice or anti-Rumanian sentiments, - the Rumanian banks would have become incapacitated. The credits given to Rumanian banks were often twice as high as their entire capital. ¹⁹⁹

Towards the end of the century, buying of land by Rumanian peasants weakened and a number of farms were declared bankrupt. But this was not caused by the policy of the Hungarian government. According to Suciu:

Many well organized farms disappeared mostly because of two sins: alcoholism and senseless squandering. These and many other sins, but particularly the lack of rational management have deeply and ruthlessly undermined the basis of our farms. ²⁰⁰

Similar statements may be read in a booklet written about the causes of the phenomenon. In this booklet, however, as in many others, the Rumanian authors also used antisemitic agitation, asserting that the Jewish innkeepers cheated the Rumanian peasants and took their goods, etc. ²⁰¹ In the second half of the 19th century, such agitation was very frequent in the Rumanian press; often connected with an appeal to boycott the Jewish merchants and innkeepers. In the above mentioned booklet, this is summarized as follows: "Beware of the Jewish swindlers and of the foreign banks." In this kind of chauvinistic propaganda, the Rumanians were said to be "the only really honest" people.

In the first decade of the 20th century, the buying of land by the Rumanian peasantry, with the efficient financial help of the Rumanian banks, increased. The old Hungarian estates disappeared successively. According to a study made in 1913, out of those 16 counties of Transylvania, the Rumanian peasants bought most land in 14 of them. ²⁰²

All this would not have been possible without the total indifference of the Hungarian state. It did not raise any obstacle in the way of free buying of land. Moreover, it helped effectively the peasantry in increasing their knowledge, in order to achieve better farming results. The economic committees in the counties were ordered to instruct the peasants in modern ways of management; and in areas of the nationalities, this instruction was to be given in the language of the respective nationality. The state also provided free animals of high quality, fruit-trees, etc. to individuals, societies and villages. According to a list from 1910, six counties, most of them with a Rumanian majority, received in that year animals worth 407.834 crowns. In a Rumanian book about the annexed territories of Hungary, published in 1920, it is stated that "During the last ten years, the breeding of cattle showed considerable progress, not so much quantitatively but as regards quality. One may say that the value of the animals rose by 50%." ²⁰³

The picture of the Hungarian landlord invariably as an usurper and exploiter, given by Pascu, does not correspond to reality. There were many landlords who helped the Rumanian peasants more than Rumanian landords did. This was also mentioned in the Rumanian press, which caused great concern among strongly nationalistic Rumanians. Thus, a newspaper in Brassó (Brasov) specified in 1909 that the Rumanian peasants in Máramaros (Maramures) hated the Rumanian lord, while they often stated: "There is no better lord than the Hungarian" (Domn mai bun ca Ungurul, nu-i). ²⁰⁴

At the same time as the economic situation of most of the Rumanian peasantry became much better, areas remained in which there were many poor villages. The contemporary Rumanian leaders asserted that this was caused by the Hungarian state. However, the picture is not as simple. Several Rumanian publicists expressed that other factors were also important or even primary. The weekly magazine Revista Bistritei [The Magazine of Bistrita] stated in 1903:

"The first cause of our poverty is the immoderate use of spirits." ²⁰⁵ The second cause was, according to the same publication, luxury, particularly as regards clothing. Dionisie Longinu, a Rumanian lawyer, held a similar opinion and also stated:

The negligence of the peasant, his aversion for learning, the lack of practical instructions and models, the criminal lack of confidence in the intellectuals, the abuses of intellectuals against the people and their indifference to the peasants, the unlimited trust of the people in foreigners, the lack of following advice, alcoholism, laziness, hatred against each other and the many litigations, loitering, the irrational loans, their senseless use, the interests and the luxury... These are some examples of the cause of emigration to America.

A comparison of the proportion of day-workers (the poorest of all working people) may throw some light upon the situation of the Rumanians as compared to the Szeklers: In 1900, the proportion of day-workers in Hungary was 25.2%. In the Rumanian areas, it was only 19.7%, while among the Szeklers, 30.7% were day-workers. ²⁰⁶

The situation of the peasants in Transylvania as compared to the Rumanian lands

The strongly biased and deceptive presentation by Pascu and his frequent reference to "national oppression" in Transylvania gives a fundamentally false picture about the real situation of the Rumanian peasants there. They were not exploited in a higher degree than other peasants; and the Rumanian landlords in Muntenia and Moldavia (Moldova) oppressed their own peasants in a much harsher fashion. There, as mentioned above, the serfs were liberated 16 years later. The independence war of 1877 ruined several tens of thousands of peasants.

Giurescu (1975) gives the following account of the situation of the peasants in Rumania in the period in question:

Although the agrarian production increased much in the last decades (between 1886 and 1906 by 100%), and the prices of the products increased considerably, the peasantry was in a difficult situation, with a very low living standard. The chief cause of this was the lack of land, the wrong distribution of ownership: while 4.171 landlords owned 3,787.192 hectares, 1,015.302 peasants had only 3,319.596 hectares, thus, about three hectares each of them. The rest of the agrarian class (between 10 and 100 hectares) owned a total of 816.414 hectares of land.

To this comes the unfortunate system of leasing, - very many owners of big estates did not work themselves the fields but gave them to the lessees, a considerable part of whom were strangers, whose interest was to draw as much profit as possible. This resulted in an inhuman exploitation of the peasants, whose working days were bought cheap but who were forced to pay usurious rent for the money advances given for food, increasing their dijma [metayage] (up till one in two), and often, unjust measurements. The local administration, sharing a joint interest with the lessees, was on their side. ²⁰⁷

Peasant revolts broke out in several counties in the years 1888, 1889, 1892, 1894, and were put down by the army, with many casualties among the peasants. After a transient improvement, brought about by the parcelling of a part of the land owned by the state and better conditions for loans, the situation deteriorated again. After 1900, the value of the land rented rose from 25 lei/hectare to 40, later to 60 or even 80 lei, and big trusts of lessees were organized, whose main aim was to increase profits. ²⁰⁸

In the early 20th century, about 70% of the large estates were hired to lessees, who paid usually the rent for 5 years. There were lessee trusts, of which the largest, that of the Fischer brothers in northern Moldavia handled, in 1904, 76 large estates with a total amount of land of 236.863 hectares (2.368 square kilometers). ²⁰⁹ Because of the short terms of the lease, the lessees were not interested in the development and improvement of agriculture; their aim was to extort as much profit as possible. The lessees leased the land, divided it into small parcels, passed them to the peasants, for money and for material returns; which meant a very high degree of exploitation. About 300.000 peasants lived in huts dug in the earth, and diseases caused by malnutrition and bad living conditions were widespread. ²¹⁰

The unbearable burdens caused a peasant revolt in Botosani county in 1907, (in the village Flamânzi; the word means "those hungry"), against Fischer's lessee-trust, which paid 20 lei for one hectare to the landowners and took 50 - 70 lei from the peasants who worked on the fields. ²¹¹ The main demand of the peasants was to lease one hectare for 25 lei. The revolt spread rapidly practically to the entire Moldavia and Muntenia. According to Istoria României. Compendiu, 1969 (p. 314), it was a natural continuation of the

centuries old peasant revolts for land and for freedom, against suppression and social injustice. Having socio-economic causes, the revolt is explained by the general evolution of Rumania at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.

The most frequent method used by the peasants was attacks on and burning down of the houses of the landlords and of the lessees, as well as attacks on the parish-halls. ²¹² The politicians tried to explain the exploitation of the peasants by accusing the Jews, since there were a number of Jews among the landlords and the lessees. The prefect of the county Botosani, Varescu, stated: "I would not give a single Rumanian for a million Jews." Stere Constantin, professor at the university of Iasi, publicist and newspaper editor, was one who described the misery:

Our peasants are in a constant state of hunger, because of the agrarian situation here. In the north of Moldavia, 88% of the peasants have no animals at all and cannot give milk to their children, of whom 40 - 50% die before age 5 years because of malnutrition. ²¹³

The conclusion of this article is as follows:

The agrarian population in the free Rumanian kingdom is living in much more miserable economic conditions than those of their oppressed brethren in Hungary, Bucovina, or even Bessarabia.

The great peasant revolt of 1907 was suppressed brutally by the army. Mass-executions, mutilations, torture were usual; often carried out by the landlords or the lessees themselves, who "tortured or killed with their own hands the former rebels." ²¹⁴ Against about 20 villages, guns were fired, and entire villages were wiped out. Approximately 11.000 peasants were killed in this civil war of the Rumanian upper class against the Rumanian peasants. After the revolt was put down, hundreds of peasants were condemned to life-time hard labour. According to Nicolae Iorga, the authorities made sentences that "surpassed all limits of the law and of decent humanity, and which bring shame on us." The peasants are now exposed to the "class- and personal vengeance of the landlords and the lessees" - added Iorga.

The Rumanian press in Hungary was of course also affected by these events. It was no longer evident that Rumania was the country of dreams, that "for all Rumanians, the sun rises in Bucharest." ²¹⁵

One of the leaders of the Orthodox Church in Nagyszeben (Hermannstadt, Sibiu) expressed his view in a Bucharest newspaper in 1911 as follows:

The economic situation of the Rumanian peasants in Hungary is by far better than that of those living in Rumania. Among the causes of this, there is our cultural situation, which cannot be compared with that of the peasants living in Rumania. Almost all of our peasants can write and read, and they are living in quite good hygienic standards. ²¹⁶

The class of Rumanian craftsmen developed mainly under Saxon and Hungarian influence. Of great influence upon the cultural development of the Rumanians in Transylvania were the merchants. Many Arumanian and Greek merchants immigrated to Hungary; their children grew up as Rumanians and had in general the financial means for studying. These young intellectuals then reached high posts within politics and economics. There were no limitations of commerce in Hungary; if there were clashes on the basis of nationality, they were organized by Rumanians against Jewish innkeepers and merchants. Similarly, only the Rumanians propagated the idea that Rumanians should only buy from Rumanians (not from Jews, Hungarians or Saxons).

Before 1867, there were very few Rumanian merchants in the towns; but thereafter their numbers increased significantly: in Brassó (Brasov), there lived in 1870 110, in 1895, already 200; and in Nagyszeben (Sibiu), their number increased fivefold during the same period of time. ²¹⁷

The Rumanian intellectuals were, until 1867, chiefly priests and teachers. There were no restrictions on entrance to the middle schools or to the universities, and those who wanted to study were also helped by scholarships from the Gojdu-fond, as well as by the Astra and other Rumanian institutions and societies. The result was summarized in 1912 by a Rumanian author as follows:

Beyond doubt, it is the merit of Transylvania to have provided a safe basis for the middle classes, particularly the small industry and the middle landlords. Understanding the spirit of the times, we have reached in this respect as far as to be able to say that we are represented in the same proportion as the other co-inhabiting nationalities in some parts of Transylvania and in the Banat of Timis, but especially in the Saxon "Kings territory." And not only numerically but also as regards quality. In this respect, future promises even more. ²¹⁸

As mentioned above, a significant number of Rumanian civil servants were employed in the state and county administration beginning with the period after the 1848 revolution, when they took the place of many Hungarian civil servants, who resigned (passive resistence). During the period of absolutism (1850 - 1867), Transylvania was practically laid under Rumanian rule; even in counties with a Rumanian minority, the administrators were often Rumanian. They even introduced Rumanian as the official language in a number of such districts. ²¹⁹ After the 1867 agreement between the Hungarians and Vienna, Transylvania was united with Hungary, and the Transylvanian governorship was abolished, its role having been taken over by the Hungarian state. However, in the counties, which were autonomous and not affected by the change of constitutional law, the Rumanian civil servants remained in their positions. Nobody thought of their dismissal. The only exception to this was in the Saxon territories.

It was the radical Rumanian movement, fighting for the annexation of Transylvania and the Banat by Rumania, that caused some concern among the Hungarian leaders. Beginning with the 1880-s, Hungarians and Saxons were put to control the Rumanian leaders of the counties, the Lord Lieutenant was thus Hungarian or Saxon, while the county chief next to him (alispán) and most of the rest of Rumanian civil servants remained in their office. ²²⁰

Rumanians in leading positions, civil servants, in Hungary, used their power and influence to spread irredentist proclamations, often from Rumania. The Irredenta Manifesto from 1885, written in Bucharest, instigated the Rumanians living in Hungary to take to arms "against their Hungarian oppressors" and kill all of them. In spite of the knowledge of these facts by the Hungarian authorities, these civil servants were almost never dismissed from their office.

It should be remembered that in contemporary Europe, the situation was very different. Neither the Germans, nor the Russians were generous in this respect: in Bessarabia, with the majority of the population Rumanian, the number of Russian civil servants was overwhelming.

There were, however, many Rumanian intellectuals in Transylvania who had a cause to complain. The number of Hungarian petty nobles, ruined economically, was quite large; and many of them sought positions in public administration. Because of political influence, many places were filled with such people and the Rumanian candidates were ignored. The policy of the Hungarian state was also restrictive in this respect because of the fear of Rumanian irredentism, which endangered the integrity of the country. Thus, a vicious circle was created. Those frustrated intellectuals who could not find a position according to their qualifications, were the chief propagators of irredentism. This is the explanation of the discrepancy between the real situation of the Rumanians in Hungary and the fierce accusations of oppression being constantly put forward in the Rumanian press. Many of them went to Muntenia and became there the chief agitators against Hungary and for the annexation of Transylvania.

The policy of the Hungarian governments was in general based upon a liberal ideology.
This explains also a number of obvious mistakes. As an example, the Hungarian embassy in Bucharest may be mentioned. In 1894, when the Memorandum was put forward, the Hungarian government sent a Rumanian-born diplomat to Bucharest as its ambassador. When the translation-section was created there, a Rumanian was appointed to press-referee. He decided what the members of the Hungarian government, most of whom did not understand Rumanian, should know about the Rumanian press in Hungary and in Rumania, what was said in the Rumanian Parliament, etc. In 1893, for example, a debate took place in Bukarest, in which the aims and methods of Rumanian irredentism in Hungary were discussed. The press-referee decided not to translate and send this debate to his Hungarian employers; as a result, the Hungarian government did not receive adequate information about the strength of this movement.

In Rumania, the employment of people in the service of the state was dependent upon their ethnic origin. The chief question was, whether the supplicant was a born Rumanian (român din nastere). ²²¹ This was the case even when stipends for students were distributed. - Professor Loebell was the most distinguished disciple of the known Rumanian physician Victor Babes. He moved with Babes from Budapest to Bucharest; later, he moved to Iasi and teached pharmacology at the University there. He asked for a permanent employment, but the government refused this, because of his Jewish origin. In spite of the solidarity of his colleagues on the Iasi university, the government did not change its mind; to the contrary: they requested Loebell to resign, because they wanted to appoint a Rumanian in his place. ²²²

The liberal economical policy of the Hungarian state favoured the Rumanian peasants. While no foreigner was permitted to buy land in Rumania or in Russia, anybody could do this in Hungary. ²²³ With the increasing amount of land acquired by Rumanians and the increasing number of Hungarian peasants emigrating to the USA, the Hungarian government planned to give some support to the peasants. This activity, however, was not considered as a main priority, as shown by the following figures: between 1881 and 1914, 21 settlements were created on state-owned estates and on land bought with money of the settlement-fund. During 20 years, about 2000 people received land in this action. In 1914, the Hungarian settlement fund owned 700.000 crowns, and had 7 millions of debts. This should be compared with the settlement policy of other countries: in Germany, 900 millions, in Great Britain, 2400 millions, in France, 100 millions and in Denmark, 57 millions were assigned to the same purpose.

As a consequence of these circumstances, many Hungarians in Transylvania were assimilated to the Rumanians. This was particularly frequent in villages with a mixed population. While the Rumanians helped each other, the Hungarian, liberal government did nothing to save these people for the Hungarian nation. These Hungarians had only the Rumanian bank to ask for loan, and this bank did not help non-Rumanians. Between 1850 and 1900, 309 initially mixed, Hungarian - Rumanian villages became purely Rumanian.

The international press wrote at the same time about the "oppression of the Rumanian population by the Hungarian state." ²²⁴

¹⁸⁸ Jancsó, 1931, p. 304.

¹⁸⁹ Köpeczi, 1989, p. 473.

¹⁹⁰ Jancsó, 1931, p. 316.

¹⁹¹ Köpeczi (red.), 1989, p. 474.

¹⁹² Petre Suciu, Probleme ardelene Transylvanian Problems , Cluj, 1924, p. 37; quoted by S. Bíró, Kisebbségben és többségben. Románok és magyarok (1867 - 1940 In the Minority and in the Majority. Rumanians and Hungarians /1867 - 1940/ , Bern, 1989, p. 9. - Sándor Bíró (1907-1975) studied theology and general history at Cluj University and at the Sorbonne in Paris. In 1942, he received summa cum laude a doctor's degree in East-European history at Budapest University, where he in 1948 became a private docent; he worked for several years there as an assistant lecturer. His main area of interest was the situation of the Hungarian folk group in Great Rumania. Born in Transylvania and living there until the age of 38, he had personal experience of this. The work we refer to - his main achievement - is based on a thorough study of the laws and regulations of the state, as well as pertinent Hungarian and Rumanian literature and newspapers.It could not be published in Communist Hungary.- We use the first part; the second part, regarding the period between 1918 and 1940, does not belong to the theme of the present book, but it should be mentioned as one of the best accounts of the situation of the oppressed Hungarian folk group in Great Rumania.

¹⁹³ Ion Slavici, Politica nationala româna The Rumanian National Politics , Bucharest, 1915, p. 27; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 11.

¹⁹⁴ Bíró, 1989, p. 11 and 14.

¹⁹⁵ Ibid., pp. 12 - 13.

¹⁹⁶Bíró, 1989, pp. 312-314.

¹⁹⁷Tribuna (Sibiu), January 18-30, 1885 Nr. 14 , quoted by Bíró, 1989, p.16.

¹⁹⁸ Ion Slavici, Românii din Ardeal The Rumanians of Transylvania , Bucharest, 1910, p. 32; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 17.

¹⁹⁹ Bíró, 1989, pp. 39 - 40.

²⁰⁰ Suciu, Probleme ardelene Transylvanian problems , 37; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 17.

²⁰¹ Cartile sateanului român. Cluj - Gherla, 1903; "Pacatele noastre" de Petre Suciu, p. 15 - 16. The books of the Rumanian village inhabitant. "Our sins", by Petre Suciu, p. 15 - 16 quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 18.

²⁰² Bíró, 1989, p. 19 - 20.

²⁰³ Ion Enescu & Iuliu Enescu, Ardealul, Banatul, Crisana si Maramuresul din punct de vedere agricol, cultural si economic Transylvania, the Banat, Crisana, and Maramures, from the agricultural, cultural, and economical viewpoints , Bucharest, 1920, p. 70 - 74; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 23.

²⁰⁴ Revista Bistritei The Magazine of Bistrita , Nr. 9, 1909; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 27. - Much later, in the 1950s, a Rumanian peasant in Brâncovenesti (Marosvécs) said the following about a Hungarian nobleman: Domnisorule, pe vremea domnului Kemény, baronul, puteam taia lemne în padurile lui, cât ne dorea sufletul. Acum, de când padurea e a statului român, nu putem aduna nici vreascuri, ca altfel padurarul ne împusca. Young man, at the time of baron Kemény, we were allowed to cut down as much timber in his forests as we wanted. Now, since the forest belongs to the Rumanian state, we cannot even collect brushwood, for if we do, the forester will shoot us .

²⁰⁵ Revista Bistritei January 18 - 31, 1903, Nr. 3; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 28.

²⁰⁶ Bíró, 1989, p. 29.

²⁰⁷C.C.Giurescu & D.C. Giurescu, Istoria românilor The History of the Rumanians , Bucharest, 1975, p. 648.

²⁰⁸ Zoltán Szász, A románok története The History of the Rumanians , Budapest, 1990 , p. 100.

²⁰⁹Giurescu & Giurescu, Istoria românilor, 1975, p. 656.

²¹⁰ Ibid., p. 100.

²¹¹ Ibid., p. 100.

²¹² Istoria României. Compendiu, 1969, p. 316.

²¹³ Tribuna poporului The People's Tribune , (Arad), March 11, 1907, Nr. 24: "Cuvântul profesorului universitar dela Iasi C. Stere în chestia taraneasca" The opinion of C. Stere, professor at Iasi university on the agrarian question , quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 31.

²¹⁴ Istoria României. Compendiu 1969, p. 318. - This peasant revolt is the theme of one of Liviu Rebreanu's major novels: Rascoala The Revolt , Editura Adevarul, Bucharest, 1932.

²¹⁵ " Soarele pentru toti români la Bucuresti rasare " - one of the slogans of the Rumanian nationalists in Hungary; formulated in 1884 by Ion Slavici in Tribuna . Cf. Bíró, 1989, p. 33.

²¹⁶ Bíró, 1989, p. 34.

²¹⁷ Gazeta Transilvaniei Brasov, January 4 - 16, 1896, Nr. 3. Quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 39.

²¹⁸ Ibid., (Bíró 1989), p. 43.

²¹⁹ Ion Slavici, Lumea prin care am trecut The world which I have gone through , Bucharest, 1930, p. 33; quoted by Bíró, 1989, p. 44.

²²⁰ Bíró, 1989, p. 49.

²²¹After the annexation of Transylvania, in the 1920's, the school-law of Anghelescu contained the racist directive that only român de sânge ("Rumanian by blood") is permitted to teach the Rumanian language and literature.

²²² Bíró, 1989, p. 56.

²²³ Ibid.,p. 65.

²²⁴ Ibid.,p. 63.

Stefan Pascu: A History of Transylvania