THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

Expression of Belonging to Romania

Freedom of the press in Hungary even provided the opportunity to express belonging to Romania in various forms. No press trial was directed against journalists or publishers in the Dual Monarchy for availing themselves of this opportunity.

The notion of belonging to Romania was first popularized in its cultural aspects. The initiative was taken by the Tribuna. This paper succeeded, by dint of persistence, to spread the notion that ,'for the Romanians the sun rises in Bucharest," in just a matter of years. This was tantamount to accepting the cultural leadership of Romania. "Today our gaze is constantly directed towards Bucharest," wrote the paper,

and our most important endeavor is to make sure that, as regards to our general culture, we do not turn away from our more cultured brethren whose spiritual accomplishments we want to spread here /in Hungary/. ⁴⁰ In another issue the Tribuna stated: We have never made a secret of our love for our brethren on the other side of the Carpathians, nor of the satisfaction with which we view the steady progress of the Romanian state, which constitutes the center of attraction of the entire Romania nation. ⁴¹

327

All Romanian, papers and publishers followed the example set by the Tribuna. It became standard practice from then on to praise Romania and express love towards the Romanian state in every way in the press, and sometimes even in books. The papers published regular columns devoted to Romania and events taking place there. This column usually bore the title "Din tara", ./from the country/, implying that "the country" could only be Romania. On the other hand, when referring to Budapest, it usually specified "the capital city of Hungary."

We have seen that the songbook prepared for Romanian. children and published on Hungarian territory could announce without any ill consequence "Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Romania!" It could say long life, or up with the Romania army, after all there was no preventive censorship, and the prosecutor's office could find no grounds for proceedings in such language, nor even in that other song which extended the borders of Romania, in its text, to wherever the "ancient and sweet" Romanian language was spoken.

Nor is it surprising that the most militant Romanian Uniate priest, Vasile Lucaciu, when appointed to head the parish of Lacfalu [Sisesti] immediately launched a nationwide collection for funds to build a church which he intended to name the Church of the Union of All Romanians. No one interfered with the collection carried out by mail and through the press, nor even with the fact that the priest wrote an account of the two-year long collection campaign, of the construction of the church, and its significance, in a separate monograph. Thanks to the freedom of the press and of opinion, this little booklet, The Church of the Union of All Romanians, could be published in Hungary without consequences; the author was not reprimanded by the state even though, according to his pamphlet, he sought to express symbolically, through the construction of the church, "that which the poets had sung, that which every Romanian soul yearns for the majestic, sacred, and blissful union of all Romanians.,' In his consecration sermon in front of the assembled Romanians who listened to his words with astonishment, he provided an even more outspoken explanation:

I consecrate this church to the sacred union of all Romanians. With its construction begins the struggle of the Romanians of Hungary for their liberation and for union with the mother country. As God has helped us to erect this proud and imposing church, so let Him help us build up the soul of the Romanians, to make them fit for their liberation and for the brotherly handshake with Romanians wherever they may live.

328

The state attorney did not initiate proceedings against him, either for his consecration speech or for the publication, of the booklet, even though the Hungarians of Nagybanya brought to the attention of the Prime Minister the irredentist behavior of the militant priest in a special petition. ⁴²

The prevailing freedom of the press and of expressing opinions explains how it was possible to openly identify with Romania the common attitude of all Romanians of Hungary. As mentioned, the attorney's office did not launch proceedings for articles advocating ethnic union or unification. The Romanian weekly of Szaszvaros could report without running risks regarding the banquet held after the consecration of the Orthodox church at Petrozseny, where the main theme of the toasts was the "racial ties that bind us to the brothers across the Carpathians. ...We have but one religion, we speak the same language, and the same great ideal guides all Romanians,', stated the report. Nor was anyone surprised that guests from Romania who had only to step over the nearby border attended the consecration: Colonel Gheorghe Lambru, the commander of the regiment of Gorj, and his deputy, moreover the principal of the Romania secondary school at Tirgu Jiu along with many of the professors. By their very presence, the guests from Romania made profession of faith to unification. ⁴³

The Romanian press of Hungary could disseminate without suffering penalties the anthem of the union with Romania which began with the words "Union is inscribed on our banners." This same song was sung at the Bucharest fair of 1906 by the choral groups from Hungary, accompanied by storms of applause on the part of the Romanian audience. ⁴⁴ This song was what fired up the Romanians during a soiree organized in one of the Romanian inhabited villages of Transylvania where the theme of unification "inspired the souls of those present with the spirit of national unification." ⁴⁵ In 1913 the Romanian orchestra conductor, Ionel Radulescu started his concert performance at Szaszvaros with this anthem; and when he was recalled to Romania by telegram, the people came to bid him farewell at the railroad station singing the same anthem. Along with the review of the concert, the newspaper published an improvised poem according to which "from the four corners of the Romanian world we hear the selfsame echo: 'Long live Romania!' " ⁴⁶

Of course, the best opportunity for an unhampered expression of the feeling of belonging to Romania came during visits to Romania. It is typical of the freedom of the press which prevailed in Hungary that the Romanian newspapers there could give reports of these experiences. Indeed, they could do this freely; because they were not threatened by

329

any kind of reprisal on the part of the Hungarian state for their contacts with Romania or for reporting the feelings expressed while over there. In 1906 Voina, the deacon of Brasso, told a large audience in Bucharest, according to the report in the press "We have but a single soul which throbs for one another, for the same idea. Therefore, we shout without fear, from the bottom of our heart: 'Long live Romania" " Of course, the Romanians of Hungary took advantage of their visits to Romania to pay their respects to the leaders of the kingdom in person. The Romanian paper, Tribuna, published in Arad, could tell its readers about such a visit by Dr. Teodor Mihali without worrying that the Hungarian authorities would consider this an offense against the state. The subscribers to the paper and other interested Romanians would indulge in guesses as to just what transpired between the leader of the Romanian National Party in Hungary and the King of Romania. The carefully worded communiqué in the Tribuna merely served to arouse the curiosity of the readers: "Dr. Mihali, on a visit to his relatives in Bucharest, stopped over in Sinaia to pay homage to His Majesty the King and the Queen." ⁴⁷ Paying homage to the king who stood at the helm of the Romanian state was nothing new as far as the Romanian leaders in Hungary were concerned. After all, as we have seen, the portraits of the King and Queen adorned many homes in Transylvania, and without any penalty at that, because the Hungarian authorities did not forbid this manifestation of homage to a foreign head of state even if they were aware of the irredentist significance of such a demonstration. In Romania anti-Hungarian irredentism was out in the open and widespread. Therefore, anyone who traveled there from Hungary for a shorter or longer period was exposed to even more marked irredentist feelings. Traveling to Romania was an everyday occurrence not restricted by the Hungarian authorities at that time.

The evolution of the feeling of belonging to Romania culminated in unhindered contacts of the Romanians of Hungary with the Romanians of Romania. During the entire period of the Dual Monarchy no limits were set on personal contacts between citizens of the two countries or on travel in or out of the country. Often the Romanians who lived along the border would just cross some mountain-pass and visit the Romanian regions near Hungary without a passport. This was even facilitated by the demographic factors because, the population was Romanian everywhere along the Hungarian-Romanian border except for the land of the Szekelys. The Romanian shepherd knew every path over the mountains, as had their ancestors in the 18th century when they immigrated in such large numbers from the Romanian principalities into Transylvania, to the point where they soon outnumbered the

330

Hungarians and the Saxons in the province. Even a passport was not always a requirement for such travel because anyone could obtain an identification card allowing him or her to cross the border. The issuance of this identification, like that of the passport, fell within the jurisdiction of the county. As we have seen, there were a good many Romanians among the county leaders who naturally would not reject applications for such identification. In fact, even if the issuance of passports encountered difficulties in some of the counties, the Romanian applicant could simply come to some county along the border, especially to Szeben or Fogaras, where he could easily obtain the identification allowing him to cross. Consequently, numerous Romanians visited Romania each year, and experienced no trouble crossing the border. The limits set on travel across the border after World War I were completely unknown at that time. We seldom encounter complaints in the more prestigious Romanian serials about refusal to issue a passport or hampering travel to Romania. Thousands of Romanians traveled from Hungary to the great fair in Bucharest in 1906, and only once were passports refused to one of these groups, a group from Szaszvaros. "This is repulsive, latter-day barbarism against freedom of culture," commented the Romanian weekly from Szaszvaros. Nevertheless, the group was able to leave without a passport; they dispatched one member to Nagyszeben with a physical description of each member of the group, and there the competent authorities of the county issued the identification allowing them to cross the border without further ado. ⁴⁸ Thus even this complaint was finally remedied. Therefore, the Romanians of Hungary could be said to have had the right to travel to Romania with relative ease, whether with passport or with an identification card.

Travel in the other direction was equally smooth. It was possible to visit Hungary from Romania either with a passport or with a simple identification allowing the bearer to cross the border. Romanian visitors literally flooded Hungary at all times. Journalists, scholars, politicians, army officers, and even various members of the royal family could cross the border with equal ease in order to visit their ethnic brothers in Hungary.

The Romanian historian Nicolae Iorga, one of the main organizers of the Bucharest fair of 1906, the greatest enemy of the Hungarian state and the First Secretary of the Cultural League of Romania, visited the regions of Hungary inhabited by Romanians many times. In 1906 he was accompanied on his trip to northern Transylvania by the Romanian lawyer, Victor Onisor. According to Iorga's account in the weekly of Beszterce, no one even questioned his presence. No Hungarian authority challenged him to identify himself His only unpleasant

331

experience was a result of his long beard, because of which Romanian women mistook him for a Jew and called him "dirty." Iorga was to describe the episodes of this journey in a lengthy volume. Before the publication of the book, he had already held several conferences in Bucharest about his experiences in Hungary. He noted during one of these conferences that the Romanians were a "cultured people" whereas the Szekelys were "barbarians thrown among us by the circumstances." He concluded by the following appeal for unification: "We must awaken the soul and work for the fraternal unification of all the fragments that compose our nation." These observations of Iorga were reprinted in the Romanian papers of Hungary; ⁴⁹ in fact, the entire text of the conference was published as a separate pamphlet in Naszod. Thus the Hungarian authorities undoubtedly found out; yet Iorga continued to visit Hungary in subsequent years without any impediment.

The above statement and many other acts of Iorga are indications of his animosity towards the Hungarians. The Hungarian authorities were well aware of the ideas of the professor from Bucharest and of their harmful effect on the Romanians of Hungary harmful at least from the point of view of the state and of the Hungarians. Still, when the general assembly of Astra opened in Balazsfalva in 1911, Iorga was allowed to participate on the third day of the celebrations. He had just arrived on the express train from Bucharest. When he entered the hall, all Romanians stood at attention, as if they had been greeting the King himself. Iorga sat on a small chair behind the president's rostrum, and gazed with great love, if not a little satisfaction, at the Romanian faces beaming towards him. ⁵⁰ As the First Secretary of the Cultural League, Iorga paid visits of a similar nature and with similar intent to the Romanians of Bukovina living under Austrian rule; but since he reported on his visits there in the same vein, the Austrian authorities expelled him from Bukovina forever. ⁵¹

In addition to scholars, journalists, and officers, members of the Romanian royal family often visited the areas of Hungary inhabited by Romanians. From Sinaia, where they spent their summers, they occasionally came over to Brasso and the vicinity, and were always greeted with loud cheers by the Romanian population. Some Hungarian papers suspected a specific purpose behind these "high level,' visits, and even surmised as indeed it happened that these royal visitors arrived on Hungarian territory occasionally in the company of high-ranking officers, and perhaps not always merely to admire the beauty of the scenery. The Romanian papers protested indignantly against the "base suspicions" of the Hungarians. ⁵² But they knew quite well, among each other, why Ion Bratianu, the Prime Minister of Romania,

332

had paid a visit to Brasso in the company of Sazonov, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the second half of June 1914. In fact, the news spread like wildfire among the Romanians of Hungary.

Contacts between the Romanians of Hungary and the Romanians of Romania, as we know, did not cease even during World War I.

This freedom was one of the most important rights of the Romanians. In the chapter on culture we have discussed the mass rallies and gatherings held by the Romanians of the Hungarian state in order to protest various Hungarian laws on education. There being no state of emergency or preventive censorship during the entire period of Hungarian rule, only rarely did the authorities intervene to restrict the right of assembly. According to the prevailing regulations, if citizens intended to meet for whatever reason; they had to announce their intentions at least 24 hours in advance, either to the sheriff in the villages, or to superintendent of police in the towns. They would also communicate the venue and the program, requesting that the announcement be acknowledged. The pertinent authority had to respond to this announcement within the shortest possible delay. An acknowledgment in writing was tantamount to authorization; but if the acknowledgment was not forthcoming, permission was denied. Denial of authorization could be appealed all the way up to the Minister. ⁵³ As regards the right of assembly, Romanians were content to demand that it be regulated in a uniform way so that they would not be exposed to the fickleness of the local authorities. They presented the issue as if the exercise of this right encountered the greatest difficulties. On the contrary, however, items in the Romanian press indicate that the freedom of assembly was almost invariably respected throughout the period: very seldom was authorization denied. Before the well-known ordinance of Minister of the Interior Karoly Hieronymi (with which he dissolved the Romanian National Party in 1894), even Romanian political gatherings could take place wherever and in whatever form the organizers desired. "Until Hieronymi came with his draconian regulations, it wasn't so difficult for us," noted the lawyer, Dr. Aurel Vlad.

Before those regulations we could witness effective manifestations of the will of our nation. From the sixties to the years of the Memorandum, the Romanians availed themselves fully of the right to assemble. Then, in the suddenly tense atmosphere, some

333

local authorities were less forthcoming in the matter of authorizing political meetings, in a few instances. ⁵⁴

Indeed, before the Memorandum the Romanians availed themselves fully of the right to assemble, and within a few years the situation returned to normal. After 1905, when the Romanian National Party gained a new lease on life and modified its anti-state program, once again mass rallies of Romanians were organized. Hundreds of rallies were held in 1906, 1907, 1908, 1910, and 1911, to enable delegates to the parliament to present their annual and other reports. There were victory parades following the elections, protests against the Apponyi Laws, and mass rallies in connection with the proposed law on electoral rights, in rapid succession. The mode prevailing at these rallies was virulently anti-Hungarian. After the elections in 1906, at Szaszsebes, the large majority of Romanian voters, their hats doffed, paraded down the streets escorting the successful candidates, and lined up along the market where they sang, "Awake, Romanian, from your slumber. "According to the report in the Romanian press:

speaker after speaker spoke openly, breathing fire into the hearts of the people at the town market, then marched around the town singing, and then once again speeches, making noise to their heart's content; yet there was not a single gendarme of twisted mind to intervene or forbid such demonstrations, as long as they were otherwise peaceful., ⁵⁵

Similar observations may be read in another Romanian weekly regarding the mass rallies at Romanszentgyorgy and Bethlen where the Romanian voters of the area were summoned to defend their right to vote. At these mass rallies the Romanian speakers attacked the government's proposed electoral law in rousing speeches; during the speeches the sheriff was present, as was the entire body of civil servants in Bethlen, yet "they did not interrupt the speakers with a single word or gesture." ⁵⁶ The Romanian delegates presented their reports to their constituency in such a manner as to provide political schooling for the masses. The Libertatea would have preferred to hold such meetings once a month because, as it noted, then "these rallies would become most effective cultural and political training, and provide a stimulus for improving the Romanian people in every respect.", ⁵⁷ The most outstanding in the series of mass rallies and general assemblies in the coming years were the ones held at Szaszvaros in 1910, the anniversary

334

meeting of the Astra already discussed, and the protest meeting of 1912 at Gyulafehervar.

A great Romanian rally was held at Szaszvaros in the spring of 1910. From 4,000 to 5,000 Romanians participated in the rally, along with representatives from the Hungarian municipal authorities. They listened to Goga's speech. It did not backfire against the illustrious poet, even though he stated, within earshot of his listeners:

You know how Christ was beaten, spat upon, and crucified, only to ascend to heaven thereafter. But, brothers, the fate of our Romanian nation resembles that of our divine guide in many ways. Our own people have been tied down, beaten, spat upon, and crucified between two thieves, in the same way. ⁵⁸

Preparations for the mass rally of the Astra at Balazsfalva were rather interesting. The organizers of the rally had reached an understanding with the Hungarian authorities to the effect that the gendarmes dispatched to Balazsfalva would not be posted along the streets. Indeed, during the entire period of the meeting no gendarmes were seen on the streets; as if embarrassed, they modestly retired to a public school building so that the distinguished guests from Romania would not even notice them, as arranged beforehand by Iuliu Maniu directly with the Hungarian Prime Minister. The report on the celebrations states:

In order to avoid any unpleasantness, and in order to avoid the hateful supervision of the state, the master of ceremonies Dr. Maniu, personally called upon Prime Minister Khuen- Hedervary, in order to show him the program of the activities. The program was approved and Maniu was given assurances that the administration would cause no difficulty in the execution of details. ⁵⁹

Indeed, the celebration went on without interference.

At first the authorities would not allow the protest rally planned for Gyulafehervar in 1912; but, upon instructions from the Hungarian Minister of the Interior, permission was finally granted. Some 20 to 30,000 people gathered; the popular paper of the Romanian peasantry noted:

The Romanians were unable to find accommodations for the night on account of the large multitude and had to sleep under the

335

stars. This seldom happens in our own country where no sooner do 20 or 30 peasants assemble the local authorities immediately intervene to disperse them, chase them away, and stop them from voicing their opinions, from writing a memorandum, or from protesting in any way. In Hungary, in spite of all the intimidation by the gendarmes, Romanians gather by the tens of thousands to defend their rights effectively. ⁶⁰

After World War I, the statements of some Romanian politicians of Hungary confirmed that this right to assemble really existed. For instance, Alexandru Vaida-Voevod told the grand assembly of the National Peasant Party held at Temesvar in 1923 that at the time of Tisza, the Hungarian authorities "did not ban a single meeting of the Romanian National Party.'' ⁶¹ Vaida was telling the truth. We may complement his declaration with data concerning the antecedents of the mass rally at Gyulafehervar on December 1, 1918. The Romanian army had not yet occupied Transylvania at that time and the transportation network was still in Hungarian hands. The Hungarians knew from the proclamation summoning the mass rally that the Romanians intended to declare their secession from Hungary. Nevertheless, as noted by the official paper of the Romanian National Party of Transylvania, the Hungarian authorities did not prevent the rally, but instead provided "special trains to enable all our delegates to reach Alba Iulia in time." ⁶²

This last mass rally ended the freedom of assembly enjoyed by the Romanians of Hungary. They declared the unification of the Romanians of Hungary with Romania and, a few months later, the Romanian army did indeed occupy most areas inhabited by Romanians in Eastern Hungary.

We have seen in the first chapter that, as regards the right to assemble, the Romanians of Hungary enjoyed real freedom in accordance with the prescriptions of the laws. The numerous associations formed by Romanians in Hungary and their unhindered and effective operation all indicate that this freedom existed not just in theory, but in practice.

We find no mention of any infraction of the freedom of worship in the Romanian press during the entire period of Hungarian rule. Although complaining about the infringement of autonomy of the church in connection with the introduction of the school laws, the

336

minutes of church meetings likewise do not provide evidence of any infractions against the freedom of worship. Not a single Romanian was forced to convert to another religion or to attend service at a church alien to him. Nor did it occur to anyone to order Romanian children to attend a church of a different religion. Romanian ecclesiastic meetings were held to the end of the World War I free from interference. In 1917, towards the end of the war, after the Romanian army broke into Transylvania, the Orthodox synod summoned to discuss the nationalization of the Romanian Orthodox schools was dismissed by the Hungarian representative and barred from continuing its sessions. This, however, was not a religious issue, but one of national security.

In the chapter on the churches we have seen how the Romanians took advantage of their church autonomy. Most Romanian priests indulged in anti-state activities. Sometimes the candidates of the Romanian National Party held their campaign speeches on church premises, and sometimes even motion pictures were projected there. The priests concerned suffered no harm as a consequence, because the authorities respected freedom of worship in spite of all abuses. It is evident, therefore, that freedom of worship remained a reality for the Romanians on Hungarian territory to the end.

In addition to the rights of citizens, the Romanians of Hungary enjoyed various national rights as members of a separate nationality. Most important and significant among these was the right to display Romanian national symbols.

Every nation has symbols expressing its special national character, symbols which are revered as such. These include the national flag, the national anthem, and national heroes whose feats are in harmony with the yearnings of the nation. Under alien rule the use of these national symbols is hampered in every way if the rulers harbor ill-feelings towards the minorities within the country, for the people manifest their right to a national existence and their national aspirations through these symbols, which have extraordinary potential for reinforcing a sense of identity. Hence, an important aspect of the nationalities policy of any state is its attitude towards these national symbols.

337

a. National colors

The origins of the national symbols of the Romanians of Hungary go back to the struggles of 1848. It was at Balazsfalva, at the famous grand assembly of May 15, 1848, that the flag of the Romanian nation of Transylvania prepared at a national conference at Nagyszeben, was first displayed. The Romanians of Transylvania who attended that meeting declared blue, white, and red, the dominant colors of the Romanian folk costumes, as the Romanian national colors. At Balazsfalva the flag was held by Ioan Puscariu, later a councilor in the Hungarian Ministry of Education and judge of the Supreme Court, on the speakers' rostrum at the grand assembly; for a long time thereafter he was referred to as the "nation's flagholder." ⁶³ During the autocratic regime, the Austrians would not allow the use of the Romanian flag. When Hungarian constitutional life was reestablished after the Compromise, the Romanians no longer used the flag of 1848 but a different one, the colors of which were blue, yellow, and red for in the meantime Romania had selected its own national colors, which were immediately adopted by the Romanians of Transylvania. The blue- yellow-red thus no longer represented the special national character of the Romanians of Transylvania, but rather of Romania itself.

During the first decades following the Compromise, the Romanian national colors could be displayed freely everywhere in the towns and villages of Transylvania. During the famous May Day celebrations of the Romanian youth of Brasso, the students deployed under the Romanian flag every year, and nobody objected. But the situation changed at the time of the Memorandum trial. Under the impact of the anti-state and anti-Hungarian demonstrations, Hungarians began to view the display of the Romanian flag and colors with suspicion and impatience. Then the Hungarian Minister of the Interior banned, by executive order, the use of the Romanian flag, but made allowance for the use of the colors on costumes, insofar as they complemented the attire. Yet local authorities here and there confiscated Romanian ribbons with the national colors, especially when these were worn profusely or demonstratively. For a long time, however, the confiscation of the colors, or the prevention of their use occurred only sporadically. After 1907 it became, it seems, consistent. "They are beginning to persecute the tricolor everywhere," noted the weekly of Szaszvaros in 1907. "It seems these persecutions are deliberate, and the Romanian sheriffs are proving themselves most zealous in carrying them out." ⁶⁴ Indeed, after the press reports on the Bucharest fair of 1906, the local authorities often showed impatience towards those who wore the

338

Romanian colors. The gendarmes in the provinces or the police in the towns confiscated the national ribbons, striking the wearers with small penalties, a fine of one or two crowns, or one or two days in jail. But these penalties had no basis in law, as becomes clear from the protest demonstrations where Romanian ribbons were worn. For instance, when Dr. Aurel Vlad was elected to parliament in 1903; his entry into Szaszvaros was marked by 8 true proliferation of Romanian colors. Upon his arrival at the railroad station, the delegate was greeted by a Romanian law-student with the national colors displayed across his chest, the cap named after the Romanian hero Mihai Viteazul on his head, and a huge garland of flowers from which hung six long ribbons bearing the Romanian national colors as well. Vlad rode into town on a coach pulled by four horses. Romanian riders preceded the coach in beautiful national costumes, all of them wearing the Mihai Viteazul cap and adorned with ribbons bearing the national colors. ⁶⁵

In 1907, when the weekly of Szaszvaros complained of the persecution of the colors, the Romanians of Budapest organized a concert. Romanian women attended the concert wearing national costumes. The national colors were among the colors of the dresses. The Romanian women remained in Budapest, wearing those ribbons for a few more days, and even appeared on the balcony during the sessions of parliament. "The members of parliament were astonished," commented the paper, "to see them on the balcony wearing their bright national costumes." ⁶⁶ It is obvious, therefore, that there was no general measure against wearing the national colors, only local excesses. This became clear as soon as the issue was brought up officially: in 1911, at the determined intervention of the Romanian delegates, Prime Minister Khuen-Hedervary issued a circular authorizing the use of the Romanian colors. From then on abuses became rare. The Prime Minister reassured Dr. Stefan C. Pop, a Romanian member of parliament, that "all those who do not heed the relevant instructions will be punished." At the same time he instructed the local authorities that they could confiscate the Romanian tricolor only when it was obviously used to demonstrate against the state. ⁶⁷ We have an interesting piece of information on how this measure was applied. At a folk festival in the community of Szaszkezd the local Romanian teacher warned the gendarmes to confiscate the national color belts of the Romanian peasants. The gendarmes refused to comply. The teacher then denounced the gendarmes at headquarters, but his denunciation once again remained without effect; because, according to the circular of the Prime Minister, the peasants had the right to wear clothing with the Romanian national colors. ⁶⁸

339

b. The Anthem

The other national symbol of the Romanians of Hungary was the song that began with the words "Awake, Romanian from your slumber!" This song was written by the Romanian poet Andrei Muresanu in 1848; actually, it was an anti-Hungarian march. In the poem the poet calls upon the Romanians to awaken from their deathlike slumber into which the barbarian tyrants had enthralled them. In a tone similar to Sandor Petofi's "Hungarian on your Feet!" he exhorts them to prepare a different future for themselves "now or never," forcing even the ruthless enemies of the Romanian people to bend. Certain verses lash out heatedly at the centuries-old yoke straddling the Romanians like cattle, and curse the cruel tyrants who want to rob the Romanians even of their language. Although the Hungarians are not mentioned by name anywhere in the poem, everyone in Transylvania knew that the terms "barbarian" and "cruel tyrant" referred to the Hungarians. In his lecture at the plenary assembly of Astra held in Balazsfalva, Octavian Goga explained in detail the meaning of this anthem for the benefit of the Romanians of Transylvania. According to Goga, the anthem expressed the Romanian mood in 1848. Some parts, such as "the uprising which breaks the fetters of long slavery, underline the pride in one's ancient Roman heritage, whereas the references to Mihai Viteazul, Stefan cel Mare, and Janos Hunyadi, these majestic shadows, remind us of the great men buried in different parts of Romanian land who awaken in our souls the ideal of the times, national unity. Because of its deep-felt summons, 'Awake Romanian from your slumber!' remains alive forever," added Goga. "It is the magic trumpet by which the year 1848 of the Romanian people blasts to the world its sway towards the idea (of unification)." ⁶⁹ According to one scholar of Romanian musicology, Andrei Muresanu "prepared the Romanian souls of the time" at the threshold of events of 1848 and continued to prepare "all Romanians" for seventy years thereafter for the momentous event of unification in 1918. ⁷⁰

Although the Hungarian authorities were aware of all this for a long time, they refrained from intervening to forbid the singing of the anthem. The song could be sung without penalties at grand assemblies, celebrations of Astra, and other national gatherings of Romanians. At the first get together of the Astra plenary assembly of 1911, once the guests recited the ceremonial toasts, including the toast for the Romanian archbishops, the report states that "the sounds of our martial song, 'Awake Romanian from your slumber,' welled up like the waves of the sea." Then all the Romanians present in the hall stood up, as did

340

the Hungarian government representative, Jozsef Szasz, the county high sheriff of Also-Feher to show their respect. Once the song w as chanted, Szasz clinked his glass with the glasses of the Romanian archbishops in a most friendly manner. ⁷¹

While this scene was taking place, the pertinent departments of the Hungarian judicial branch declared, in a statement with force of law, the right to play the Romanian national anthem. The issue was brought to the courts in 1910. At the time of the elections, the 21 Romanian voters in the community of Szancsal [Smcel], with the priest Smigelski in the lead, sang the Deseapta in chorus at the railroad station, after the priest had just concluded a passionate exhortation. The gendarmes, who considered the manifestation anti-Hungarian, reported the incident to higher authorities. On the basis of this report, the prosecutor at Erzsebetvaros initiated proceedings against the 21 Romanian voters and the priest, accusing them of agitation. But the court acquitted all the accused because, as it explained, "there is no law or ordinance, nor any circular issued by the government forbidding the Romanians to sing their national songs, or declaring such singing as a kind of agitation against the state." The court did not fail to note that the text of the march was inflammatory, "but it is not clear against whom it inflames." The sentence was upheld by the Appellate Court of Marosvasarhely and the Supreme Court in Budapest as well. Thus, practically all courts in Hungary declared the free use of the national anthem of the Romanians of Transylvania legal. Indeed, the Romanians were greatly pleased. "With this judicial decision another blow has been struck against Hungarian chauvinism, another chunk sliced from their horns," commented the Gazeta Transilvaniei of Brasso. The official paper of the Romanian archdiocese of Nagyszeben commented: "Therefore, let us continue to intone what we have always been singing; because it is the anthem that strengthens our national consciousness."

The Romanian readers complied: they never ceased to sing this song at every possible opportunity. ⁷² What's more, they also sang, as we have seen, the Anthem of Unification composed by Ciprian Porumbescu, without interference.

c. National Heroes

Romanian national heroes may be listed among the symbols of the Romanian nation. In general, the Romanian public was intent on idolizing Avram Iancu, the leader of their forces in 1848. Iancu was commander of those Romanian troops who fought against Kossuth and the Hungarians, on the side of the Habsburgs. As an individual, Iancu

341

was a noble idealist, who personally did not condone or duplicate the atrocities committed by his lieutenants against the Hungarians. He seized arms to fight for the separation of Transylvania from Hungary, but his long-term goal was to prepare unification with the Romanian principalities. When the revolution had been put down and the Austrians showed him no gratitude, he lost his mind. Most Hungarians thought of him with pity rather than anger.

Iancu died in 1872. He was buried on September 13 in the cemetery of Cebe, next to the oak-tree where, according to the legend, Horia, the leader of the peasant uprising of 1784, used to plot his political plans. Iancu's funeral service was conducted by 30 Romanian priests in the presence of 10 ,000 Romanian peasants, amidst the tolling of all the bells in the county of Zarand. ⁷³ After the funeral it gradually became a custom for Romanians to pay a pilgrimage to the tomb of Iancu. This was the beginning of his idolization.

An interesting episode took place in 1901. In a writ of accusation a Hungarian prosecuting attorney made a statement to the effect that Avram Iancu was a leader of bandits. His statement elicited enormous indignation among Romanians. They objected to the statement in a flood of articles, pointing out that the attorney had offended "The honor of the entire Romanian nation." The Romanian university student, George Novacovici, attacked the prosecutor himself in a passionate article, for which he was taken to trial; but the jury at Kolozsvar acquitted Novacovici, who had been defending himself in his mother tongue. ⁷⁴ At the same time a delegation of Romanian university students placed a great wreath on the tomb of Iancu, decorated with ribbons of the Romanian colors, holding fiery anti-Hungarian speeches. The local authorities qualified the laying of the wreath as an anti- Hungarian demonstration because of the character of the speeches, confiscated the wreath, and brought the students to court. The court, however, did not consider the wreath on the tomb of Iancu a punishable offense; hence its verdict was "that the confiscated wreath should be returned." Under the leadership of Novacovici the university students carried the wreath solemnly back to Cebe and "replaced it on the tomb of the hero whence the profane hands of the government strongmen had robbed it." After the ceremony "they once again looked back at the wreath; it stood firm, while the national flag was streaming victoriously." The youths returned to Brad, where they were hailed by the Romanian intelligentsia. They shared lunch and spent a few exalted hours together. "Finally, strengthened in our emotions, we bid each other good-bye, with the powerful conviction," wrote one of the

342

participants, "that we will raise the idolization of Iancu into a national principle." ⁷⁵

Thereafter Romanian society indeed made a national principle of idolizing Iancu. More and more groups made pilgrimage to Cebe year after year, and the tomb of Iancu never remained without a wreath. It seems, however, that the Romanians of Hungary were led in this adulation more by the desire to demonstrate against the Hungarians than by a genuine love for the actions and person of the hero. We may conclude this from the sad enough fact that although those Romanians who lived formerly under Hungarian rule benefited economically from joining Greater Romania in 1918, and did not bother to erect an appropriate monument for Iancu. At Kolozsvar, on the former Istvan Bocskai Square, across from the National Theater, they did erect a small stone pillar on which it was inscribed: "Place reserved for the statue of Avram Iancu." The inscription on the little stone pillar remained for years to accuse the descendants of the followers of Iancu of neglect.

While the Hungarian authorities contributed to the idolization of the Romanian national hero thanks to the decisions handed down by the Hungarian Courts, they did not always authorize the celebration of the plenary assembly of Balazsfalva of May 15, 1848. A great Romanian national holiday was held at Balazsfalva every year until 1885. In 1884 for instance, they lit up and decorated with Romanian flags the memorial erected where the original grand assembly had taken place. A refectory table was set up next to the monument and covered with tablecloth for a formal dinner on the eve of the holiday, during which the significance of the great day was assessed in passionate speeches. At midnight they sang "Awake Romanian...." The flag remained on the memorial until the following day. ⁷⁶ At the same time the Romanians celebrated in the larger cities of Transylvania as well: Kolozsvar, Brasso, Nagyszeben, etc. These celebrations were not banned by the local authorities.

Yet the Hungarians of Transylvania resented the annual glorification of the grand assembly of May 15, perceiving in it, not without cause, an anti-Hungarian demonstration which awakened painful memories. This resentment manifested itself in the newspapers as well. We have seen how the Tribuna summarized the historical significance of the meeting of May 15, 1848.

The Hungarian nation gave the signal, on March 15, for an uprising against the legitimate ruler. The army of Hungary marched against its supreme commander. The Hungarian

343

parliament declared the demise of the legitimate dynasty, the revolution was on its way, the civil war was under way with all its consequences.... Two months after the outbreak of the revolution, the prospect of the imperial forces defeating the rebels by themselves diminishing day by day, the Romanians gathered at Balazsfalva and declared their intention: that they were prepared to spill their blood and put their possessions on the line in order to end the revolution and reestablish law and order on the basis of the Pragmatic Sanction. ⁷⁷

The Hungarian public and the authorities realized that the Romanians used these arguments to transform the events of 1848 to suit their purposes. After all, in the first half of May there was no such thing as a Hungarian army and, as everyone knew, the demise of the dynasty did not take place until the spring of 1849. Therefore, and because of its obviously anti-Hungarian character, the Hungarian Minister of the Interior banned the Romanian celebrations of May 15 at Balazsfalva in 1885, while the celebration was allowed to continue in other cities. In the calendar of the Tribuna, in the column titled "National Holidays," anyone could read for years the self-same text: "Although Hungarian rule punishes us severely and persecutes us for all kinds of national actions and will not allow us to hold meetings, even this year the majestic day of May 15 was celebrated in a dignified manner in many Romanian provinces, including Brasso, Szeben, Kolozsvar, and Nagyvarad." In Kolozsvar after a festive religious service, there was a soiree. ⁷⁸ This could not have been held without the knowledge of the police, after all the program of the soiree was announced in the papers beforehand. It follows, therefore, that the Hungarian authorities, in spite of the interesting assertions quoted above, did allow the celebration of May 1S, albeit not in the form of an anti-Hungarian demonstration.

In general, as regards the use of national symbols, we may state that, according to the evidence collected from the Romanian press, the Romanians of Hungary enjoyed extensive, opportunities to express their national yearnings.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940