After the unification process of 1918, in the former Hungarian State schools Romanian language was introduced as a teaching language. Consequently, the Hungarian as a teaching language was solely preserved in the vocational schools. The governments showed little understanding toward the minorities' vocational schools, aiming rather at the unification of the scholar system. The Roman Catholic Church sustained and administrated hundreds of elementary and secondary schools, many of them having a multi-secular history. Based on the documents from the churches' archives, this study presents the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to preserve and maintain all these schools.
Up to 1918, the institutions of the Roman Catholic Church in Transylvania had maintained a dominant position, with the overwhelming majority of the Hungarians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire members of this church. Moreover, although the separation between State and Church had been operated following the confrontations of the 1890s, the Church continued to exert its influence over society and culture, especially at the educational level. Not surprisingly, considering the overall political atmosphere inside the Monarchy, the church institutions played a tremendous role in the Transylvanian society. The state tried through all means to enlarge and expand the networks of schools under its direct control and sustenance. Nevertheless, the denominational education in the province succeeded in securing an influential and patronising position in most
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 115
activities. During the latter part of the dualist period, the state administered as little as 30% of the overall number of the primary and secondary schools in Transylvania.
As for the organisation of the system, no radical changes had occurred. The old structures of the Roman Catholic Church had been preserved. However, before the union of Transylvania with Romania, many parishes belonging to the dioceses of Satu-Mare and Oradea were included in Hungary in consequence of the new frontier lines and the subsequent application of the "aeque principaliter" principle - two dioceses governed by one bishop. The same principle had also introduced the administration of a diocese by a non-resident bishop. A similar situation could be found in the diocese of Cenad. Here, however, no change in the structure of the diocese was operated, unless we count as one the change of name from the Cenad diocese to the Timisoara diocese, prompted by the fact that between the World Wars the name used had been that of the latter.
As mentioned before, the Roman Catholic Church was one of the most important historical denominations in Transylvania, with a particular status within the social and economic relations in the region. It maintained an important school network, which in the Ciuc area was exclusive. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church also patronised a wide range of secondary schools, all of them centuries old. In the beginning, the Roman Catholic Church took upon itself to catechise and educate the younger generation.1 These were the fundamental objectives of the activities carried out by its parishioners. The role of catechisation was to integrate the teaching and moralising strength of the Bible into the life and culture of the people. It was only logical, then, that the educational role of the church was performed by schools - the place to assimilate culture. It is precisely through this activity that the Roman Catholic Church played an important social and cultural role in the historical evolution of Transylvania.2
Following the Union of 1918, which among others granted the Romanians in Transylvania the right to self-determination, both the situation and the status of the Roman Catholic Church changed radically. The parishioners were mostly Hungarians and partly, Swabians. They too had undergone radical demographic changes. Prior to 1918, the Hungarian population was the dominant ethnicity and enjoyed the full co-operation of the state authorities, whereas after the formation of the Romanian State, they became the minority. At denominational level, the Roman Catholic Church held the dominant position in the former Hapsburg Empire, with the vast majority of the inhabitants being Roman Catholic. Then, it became just another church among a group of more within the Romanian State, functioning alongside the dominant Orthodox Church and the privileged Greek Catholic Church of the majority.3
The Roman Catholic Church examined the emerging situation and soon designed new tasks for the given conditions. Preserving and developing its network of schools and other educational institutions became a priority. This is how bishop Márton Áron underlined the responsibilities of his generation: "We have a special
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 116
duty bestowing upon us a heavy responsibility. Yet, future will give the
measure of our actions and judge us by the values we have created and
developed in the process of fulfilling our present mission. We are the
artisans of our own destiny, and we can expect nothing from life but what
we achieve through consistent, hard work. We have to discard our indolence
(…) we have to exist in order to shape a generation that should meet
the requirements of our times…"4
The activity in the educational field
of the Roman Catholic Church and of other denominations was directly determined
by the changes occurring in the social and political life of the Romanian
society. Throughout the period between the World Wars, especially in the
first decade, the efforts of the Romanian State were directed towards
the unification of the economic, legislative and cultural spheres. The
Romanian political parties envisioned different manners of accomplishing
and promoting these goals. The phenomenon translated into a climate of
instability in the political life of the country, the arena of confrontation
for two important parties: the National Liberal Party (NLP) and the National
Peasant Party (NPP). The impact was notable in the activity of the Roman
Catholic Church, too. It was best illustrated in the approach to the minority
problem: the NLP adopted a unifying centralising politics, whereas the
NPP advocated a regional-oriented politics.
The Romanian public opinion also reflected
the two parties' conflicting ideologies on the minority issue. An expert
in the epoch's history and ideologies asserted From the start, the liberals had declared
Romania an indivisible national state, definitely not multilingual, which,
in accordance with the universal liberal doctrine, provided the equality
of freedom and rights for all citizens. Therefore, the liberals considered
that at the very foundation of democracy and of a full-fledged state lay
the individual rather than collective rights.6 The NPP's tenet
endorsed a distinct approach to the issue of minorities, but deemed it
unnecessary to promote specific minority policies in Romania. Thus, the
idea that there was no minority issue in Romania became a generalised
viewpoint. Naturally, the apolitical Romanian society had readily embraced
the idea.7
After the Union, Romania underwent a process
of "building the nation", that is, the genuine process of unifying
the state.8 Referring to the diverging opinions surrounding
the national processes, István Bibó said: "The national
frame in Eastern Europe was something to work on and rehabilitate, something
to achieve and permanently defend not just against the existing dynastic
state, but also against the partial popular indifference colluding with
a wavering national consciousness. This situation generates the dominant
feature of the unbalanced political spirituality of Central and Eastern
Europe: apprehensions about the existence of the community".9
Thus, the building of a nation occurs within the frame of an existing
state10, and according to Bibó's
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 117
that the policy generated dissatisfactions among the minorities, even
in such matters as the choice of terminology, as was the case of the term
"foreigners", deemed derogative.5
thesis the setting up of democracy is hesitant in the East European states
because of these apprehensions. As a result, nationalism is embraced by
the entire society. After the unification process, the Romanian governing
political forces considered that the new frame should undergo a radical,
rapid and sustainable cohesion. The need for a national elite was dramatically
felt, leading to an intercession by the state. Moreover, some social categories
immediately enjoyed advantages that theretofore had counted as privileges
for some ethnic groups. Such changes affected especially the Hungarians
in Transylvania. The necessary adjustments made within the government,
the state administration and the social and economic life were, eventually,
reflected by the relations between the several minorities and the majority.
Yet, the official politics of the state was met with sharp criticism.
Traian Bratu, the dean of the University of Iasi, renowned in the World
Wars period for his opinions on the status of minorities, stated that
the foundation for any state was equal rights for all citizens, to be
achieved only if all the citizens were loyal to the state. This goal would
only be ruined by hatred or by granting privileges to some over others.11
All speciality literature dealing with the issue of nation and nationalism
emphasises that education and culture are paramount in the process of
building a nation. The development of the school network in order to create
a new elite was sustained by the state; in fact, this was part of the
cultural enterprise having for its main objective unification and the
eradication of regionalism.12 This policy also affected the
activity of the Roman Catholic Church. However, as pointed out by an important
expert in inter-ethnic relations, nationalism has never been a major issue
with the varied ethnic communities in Transylvania, contrary to what the
politicians have purported.13 The legislation concerning education
and the school system issued during the World Wars established the course
of development for the Roman-Catholic denominational education under the
auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. As the schools were the most effective
tools for preserving national identity, the topic ignited hot debates
and led to conflicts of interest. Mikó Imre, one of the few specialists
in minority law stated: "Most important among the minority rights
is that regarding the schools for the citizens of ethnicity other than
Romanian. In the case of the minorities, school is the agent that ensures
the survival of the mother tongue and culture, and instructs the younger
generations in the awareness of ethnicity. This is the source of all the
problems and arguments surrounding the institutions of learning."14
On analysing the legislation pertaining
to education, one can easily observe that the main laws formulate the
general setting for the instruction of the minorities. By 1923, the Constitution
of 1866 was still in effect, while its provisions were expanded to include
Transylvania. Still, in this part of the country, the Directory Council
elaborated a full set of measures and regulations. This eventually led
to the enforcement of a particular variant of the law. The Constitution
of 1923 made general prescriptions regarding the freedom of education,
making no reference to special measures concerning the minority
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 118
educational system.15 Paragraph 24 stipulates that the right
to education is provided for all the citizens of Romania by law, unless
it conflicts with ethics and public order.16 Yet, the Constitution
of 1938 does not safeguard unrestricted and equal access to education
for the minorities. Under the royal dictatorship, all of the laws and
regulations regarding the minorities were compiled into The Status
of Minorities.17 Furthermore, minorities could found schools
under the more general law regarding private education. The Churches could
lay the foundation of private schools only by civil right.
In many respects, the Romanian legislative
system, as is the case of the minority's right to education, was in consonance
with the international law system. International law included the principle
by which providing education in the mother tongue is the way to
preserve the minority's national specificity, language and religion. This
principle was also promoted by the Treaty on Minorities, signed by Romania
on December 9, 1919 in Paris. The treaty safeguards the right to teach
and learn in the mother tongue, as well as the setting up and administration
of institutions of education and culture, and the unrestricted use of
the mother tongue.18 However, the treaty did not endorse any
special rights for the private schools. The state had the right to supervise
and check such schools, whereas the minorities were under the obligation
to administrate them. It was also the duty of the state to subsidise these
schools. The treaty on minorities admitted as absolute the right to teach
and learn in the mother tongue, that is, the treaty needed no further
approval by the State. Traian Bratu had underlined this feature of the
treaty, maintaining that to observe this legal document was mandatory
for Romania to be integrated among the `civilised' states of Europe.
An international document playing an important
role in the activity of the denominational education was the Concordat
signed between the Romanian State and Vatican. This document came in effect
in July 1929, and was paramount in settling the relations with the Holy
See. It is noteworthy that the first paragraph of Article 19 stipulates
that the Catholic Church has the right to found and subsidise elementary
and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of a bishop, with the supervision
of the Ministry of Education.19 The Concordat also stipulated
that the denominational schools under the jurisdiction of a bishop had
the right to choose the language of teaching. The Concordat had
brought hope among the Catholics, in a country with a prevailingly orthodox
population.20
1924 was the year when the first laws
were issued regarding the minority education during the World Wars. The
Romanian government saw the necessity for a merger of the educational
system: the law regarding the public elementary education and the grammar
schools. This law was paramount for the educational system. As for the
minority rights, the above-mentioned law laid down the principles to follow
by the laws to come.
The law extended to seven years the duration
of elementary education, emphasising its compulsive character. The law
was also meant to eradicate the differences
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 119
of the four distinct educational systems. The initiator of the law himself
- C. Anghelescu - admitted that the goal of the law was to unify and harmonise
the educational system, but also to awaken national consciousness.21
As noticed by an observer, the Romanian government officials were aware
that public education was the institutional component with a dramatic
impact on the fate of a nation, on its cultural and spiritual growth.22
Under the law, the teaching language was
Romanian, and in the regions where the mother tongue of the inhabitants
was not Romanian, the Ministry of Education set up schools in the corresponding
languages. Nevertheless, Romanian language was compulsory in these institutions
too. Hot debates were ignited by some provisions of the law, such as Paragraph
8, which stipulated that the Romanian citizens who did not speak Romanian
were under the obligation to enrol their children in either public or
private schools in the Romanian language23. This had in view
the Szeklers, whom certain historians and linguists had misinterpreted
as not Hungarian, but rather Hungarian-made, and who had taken up Hungarian
for their mother tongue. This phenomenon led to questioning the identity
of an important part of the Hungarian inhabitants. It was stated that
names such as: Ráduly, Szakács, Szûcs, Kurta, Farkas
were of Romanian origin.
Fiery debates were prompted by Paragraph
159, too, which stipulated that schoolteachers and other school employees
coming to teach from counties outside those newly united would benefit
from a 50% rise in wage. In fact, the underlying issue was the founding
of the so-called cultural areas, which were decisive in the process of
re-structuring the educational system in these territories.24
The coercive decision for the Hungarian
community to support the state schools had also generated passionate debates,
as the community had already had trouble ensuring that the activity of
the denominational schools preserved their ethnic identity. The law of
the private schools, which had regulated the situation of a large category
of schools, did not acknowledge the specific and traditional character
of the denominational schools. They were considered private schools. Despite
a long series of debates and petitions submitted to the United Nations
while the law of December 22, 1925 was still in draft, the representatives
of the minority failed to have the denominational schools nominated and
recognised under the law. Following negotiations with minister C. Anghelescu,
it was agreed that under the provisions of the law the minority pupils
can be enrolled in denominational schools - considered private schools
- or in schools set up by private people, in addition to enrolment in
state schools. The negotiations also stipulated that private schools must
obtain a special license to function from the Ministry of Public Instruction.
By law, these schools were under the direct guidance and supervision of
the Ministry. Another stipulation that played an important role and influenced
the minority education provisioned that the pupils from private schools
must take their examinations in the state schools. As regards the teaching
language, the law
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 120
specified it to be Romanian for the Romanian or Romanian-born children,
whereas for the other ethnic communities, the teaching language was the
mother tongue of those enrolled in private schools. The denominational
Catholic education suffered a great loss at the hand of certain provisions
of the law under which the schools supported by monastic orders and congregations
must use Romanian as the teaching language, with the result that many
ceased to exist altogether. Further difficulties arose when Geography
and History were taught in Romanian.
Private schools did not have the authority
to issue diplomas. There were cases where the Ministry conferred the authority
to the private schools, with the specific provision that no denominational
school could secure such status. The graduates of the Hungarian denominational
schools had to pass their examination and obtain diplomas from the state
schools. The law concerning private schools authorised the grammar schools
set up before 1918, on condition that they observe the general norms imposed
on private education25.
It is noteworthy that the law was considered
a liberal and tolerant legislative initiative. This was the interpretation
given especially by the Romanian press and the speciality literature.
The minorities challenged the law initiated by Minister Anghelescu in
what concerned the allocation of funds, the restrictions on the usage
of certain books, maps, and manuscripts banned by the Ministry of Education,
the interdiction to benefit from external financial assistance.
The law of school graduation passed in
March 27, 1925 had both short- and long-term effects on the minority educational
system in general and on the denominational one, in particular. The law
specified the obligation to pass the graduation exam in the Romanian language
in order to issue a state diploma or some other document testifying the
graduation of the secondary school. The law caused a high incidence of
school failure among the minority pupils. According to statistics, 70-80%
of the candidates failed their exams in the first year.26
The legislative frame was also valid for
the Hungarian Catholic education, later modified by the laws of 1928 and
1939.
The network of the Roman-Catholic schools
underwent essential changes after the Great Union (1918). Following the
provisions of the Peace Treaties, the state schools in Transylvania were
integrated within the Romanian school system. The pupils from 1,318 state
schools with Hungarian as the teaching language chose to attend the 755
Hungarian denominational schools.27 The situation would have
been acceptable if the number of denominational schools had been increased.
Both the Romanian legislative system and the lack of political will had
hindered this process. A further factor was the refusal by most schoolteachers
to take the oath as required by the Romanian authorities.
In the years following the Union of 1918,
the Hungarian churches established 403 elementary schools, of which 61
Roman-Catholic, 33 public schools, 7 secondary schools, 7 commercial secondary
schools, 4
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 121
pedagogic schools, and 1 pedagogic secondary school.28 This
engaged an important financial effort on the part of both the Hungarian
minority and the attending churches. Even the Minister of Public Instruction,
C. Anghelescu, appreciated the effort. Starting with the 1919-1920 school
year, the denominational schools included in their syllabus subjects which
were national in character: Romanian language and literature, the Geography
and History of Romania. At the time of the Directory Council, the school
policy undertook to incorporate the specificity of the Transylvanian society
and the history of the educational system in this part of the country,
the denominational schools included.29 After the revocation
of the Directory Council, this distinctive situation was ignored. In sharp
contrast, the educational system was gradually centralised. The Hungarian
educational system in Transylvania was subordinated to the Ministry of
the Public Instruction, whose policies differed radically from those of
the Directory Council. The Ministry and the authorities in Bucharest envisaged
an increase in the number of public schools.
The Roman Catholic education proceeded
differently during the inter-war period as compared to the pre-war period
when the Roman Catholic Church held a dominant position within the state.
The vast Austro-Hungarian Empire was prevailingly Catholic. Afterwards,
the Roman Catholics of Great Romania became citizens of an Orthodox country
with a nationally dominant Orthodox Church. This affected the denominational
educational system of the other Churches in spite of the promise made
by Onisifor Ghibu, the leading anti-Catholic, to safeguard the rights
of the educational systems other than in the Romanian language. "There
will be absolute freedom and everyone will have the right to set up as
many schools as they wish".30 In January 1922, the Minister
of Instruction promised that there would be no actions to repeal the Hungarian
schools and the authorities would not interfere with the internal issues
of these schools, for the government was fully aware of the importance
of their educational system.
The measures undertaken by the government,
however, were the opposite. A language certificate was required of the
teachers belonging to the minorities. The Hungarian teachers did not benefit
from funds allotted to teachers belonging to other educational systems.
There was no retirement program for teachers at the denominational schools,
and there was an interdiction to enrol pupils of nationalities other than
Hungarian. The seminaries were under the obligation to use Romanian as
the language of teaching. These provisions drafted by C. Anghelescu led
to serious protests on the part of the non-Orthodox Church representatives,
who petitioned the Minister and King Ferdinand.31
On December 24, 1923, the representatives
of the minority churches held a meeting at Alba Iulia in order to promote
such actions as would ensure the functioning of the denominational schools.
At the proposal of Majláth Gusztáv Károly, the Roman
Catholic bishop, they decided to require a hearing by the Minister. Minister
Anghelescu considered the initiative belated, for all the measures taken
by the Romanian State sought to secure
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 122
the learning of the official language and to hinder the process of de-nationalisation.32
Moreover, the situation of the denominational schools was aggravated by
the obligation to take the degree examination in Romanian. This led to
70-80% failure.
There was much hope about an improvement
in the functioning of the denominational schools, when the Liberal Government
was replaced by the National Peasant Party Government. It was believed
that the NPP Government under the leadership of Iuliu Maniu would try
to find a solution to the problem, which, however, was left unchanged
with the exception of funding.33 If we examine the figures,
we will see that from 1919 to 1924, 2,289 public Hungarian educational
institutions were repealed. These were elementary schools, public schools,
secondary schools, pedagogical schools and commercial schools. It was
estimated that after World War I there were 330,000 Hungarian children
eligible for school in the United Territories, Transylvania and Banat.
It was for the Hungarian churches to provide the education for these children.
Over a period of some years, the churches set up 403 new elementary schools,
of which 61 were Roman Catholic. The number of the Lutheran and Unitarian
schools also increased when the Roman Catholic Church underwent financial
difficulties.34
The following table shows the history
of schools in Transylvania:
Table 1. Sponsors of elementary schools
in Transylvania
Apparently, the situation of the Hungarian denominational schools was even worse than that of the Romanian
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 123
denominational schools in these provinces prior to 1914. In 1914 there
was 1 Romanian school to 1,007 Romanian inhabitants, while according to
the census of 1930 there was 1 denominational school to 1,647 Hungarian
residents in Romania.35
From 1930 to 1931, there were 76,255 children
enrolled in the denominational schools out of a total of 180,029. This
represented 42.4% of the overall number. The causes were varied: families
with financial difficulties, limited possibilities for the churches, or
the enrolment of many Hungarian children in public Romanian schools. Romanian
surveys of the period showed that in the 1927 school year there were 838
denominational schools registering 89,421 pupils: 49,841 were of Hungarian
nationality and 25,978 were Roman Catholics. In 1932, 53,9% of the pupils
enrolled in elementary denominational schools were Calvinists, 42,3% Roman
Catholics, and 2,9% Lutherans. The decrease in number was explicable due
to the waning finances of the Catholic school sponsors. The Roman Catholic
Church was severely affected by the 1921 agricultural reform. Look at
the following table comparing the categories of pupils and schools by
counties36:
Figure
1. The number of elementary Hungarian schools in Transylvania.
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 124
Public nursery schools with Romanian as the teaching language
Elementary public schools with Romanian as the teaching language
Elementary public schools with Hungarian as the teaching language
Denominational nursery schools
In Roman Catholic schools
In Calvinist/Lutheran schools
In Unitarian schools
In Evangelic schools
Table 2. Distribution of pupils of the elementary denominational and public schools compared to the denominational affiliation of the Hungarian population.
Figure 2. The number of pupils enrolled in elementary schools in Romania 1930/31.
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 125
Table 3. Elementary Hungarian denominational schools in Transylvania in 1932
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 126
Table 4. Public schools with Hungarian as the teaching language (1918-1927)
27 pedagogic schools in Hungarian in Transylvania in 1918, whereas in 1928 there were as few as 8 left. In 1918, 13 out of the total number of pedagogic schools belonged to the Roman Catholic denominational education, whereas by 1928 there had remained only 5: 1 pedagogic school for boys in Miercurea- Ciuc, 1 pedagogic school for girls in Sibiu, 1 for nursery school teachers in Oradea, 1 pedagogic school for girls in Oradea, and 1 pedagogic school in Satu-Mare. The pedagogic school of Miercurea-Ciuc functioned at ªumuleu Ciuc until 1923, and was the most important educational institution qualifying teachers for the denominational schools and deacons for the Roman Catholic churches.37
The survey data for this type of schools point out that, in Transylvania, there were 4 schools qualifying Hungarian teachers, of which 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 Calvinist, and 1 Lutheran, in the 1926-1927 school year. 307 pupils were enrolled in 4 pedagogic schools for boys: 119 Catholics, 76 Calvinists, 110 Lutherans, and 2 Unitarians. There were also 9 pedagogic schools enrolling 601 girls, of which 195 were Roman Catholic. The Hungarian churches were in charge with the administration of the maintenance of the pedagogic school.38
The Public Schools were of utmost importance for the educational system as they addressed the lower middle class bourgeoisie. These schools trained the pupils in the basic scientific and practical knowledge. According to the above-mentioned data, in the 1926-1927 school year there were 9 denominational public
The tables show that the majority of the Catholic schools were located
in counties such as Ciuc, Odorhei, Mures-Turda, that is, in the regions
populated by Szeklers, yet there were many elementary Catholic schools
which had also functioned in the Western regions of the country. The dissemination
area of these schools was closely related to the dissemination of the
Hungarian population, particularly to the denominational affiliation of
the communities.
The secondary education was characterised by great diversity in schools and the fluctuating number of pupils. This type of instruction played an extremely important role in forming an elite, and this is precisely how the Hungarian elite had formed between the World Wars. This system had also safeguarded the national identity. According to statistical data, there were
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 127
schools, of which 2 were Roman Catholic. Most importantly, just prior
to the war, public schools totalled 106, of which 46 were Roman Catholic.39
JSRI • No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 128
The year 1919 was a turning point in the existence of the secondary schools.
This was the year in which the authorities abolished the teaching in Hungarian
language in 11 of such institutions. In the school year 1926-27 there
were 25 secondary schools - denominational secondary schools for boys,
of which 10 were Roman Catholic. The number of pupils enrolled was 4,373,
of which 2,523 were Roman Catholics. There were also 5 secondary schools
- denominational secondary schools for girls, of which 4 were Roman Catholic.
The number of Catholic girls enrolled was 622.40
The Hungarian commercial schools with
tradition had ceased to exist. The three commercial colleges in Timisoara,
Orãstie and Târnãveni were extremely important for
the Roman Catholic community of Transylvania.41
The following table illustrates the situation:
Table 5. (see previous page) Centralised
data on the denominational schools in 192842
As shown by our analysis, the Roman Catholic
denominational education was confronted by serious problems between the
World Wars. This type of education was specific for the Transylvanian
region. The general impact of the process of unification and centralisation
the Romanian authorities had embarked upon also affected the Roman Catholic
denominational school system from a juridical, institutional and economic
perspective, alike.
Notes:
Traslated by Ana-Elena Ilinca
1 See Catechezii Tradende, in Korunk
hitoktatásáról , vol. II, Szent István Társulat
[The Society of Saint Steven] Budapest, 1980. pp. 224, 247-249.
2 Általános Katekétikai
Direktórium [General Guide on Catechization], ibidem, p.42.
3 For further discussion, see: Irina Livezeanu,
Culturã si nationalism în România Mare 1918-1930,
Humanitas, Bucuresti, 1998.
4 Márton Áron: Templom
és iskola , in: Erdélyi iskola , VII, 1939/40, 3-4,
p.126.
5Livezeanu, p. 289-347, work quoted
6 Seaton-Watson, R.W., History of the
Romanians, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934, p. 549-550.
7 See: Livezeanu. Work quoted.
8 Ibidem, p.24.
9 Bibó István, A kelet-európai
kisállamok nyomorúsága , Kriterion, Bukarest-Kolozsvár,
1997, pp. 38-41.
10 Bloom, William, Personal Identity
and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1993, p. 55.
11Bratu, Traian, Politica nationalã
fatã de minoritãti. Note si observatiuni, Cultura nationalã,
p. 8-9.
12 Livezeanu, work quoted, pp.41-63.
13 Verdery, Katherine, Transylvanian
villagers, University of California, Berkley-Los Angeles-London, 1983,
p. 345.
14 Mikó Imre, Nemzetiségi
jog és nemzetiségi politika, Minerva, Kolozsvár,
1944, p.427.
15 Official Gazette, nr. 282 of March
the 21st 1923.
16 Ioan Scurtu, Ion Bulei, Democratia
la români 1866-1938, Humanitas, Bucuresti, 1990, p.27.
17. Mikó Imre, A román
kisebbségi statútum, Gloria, Kolozsvár, 1938,
see: Mikó Imre.
18 Nagy Lajos, A kisebbségek
alkotmányjogi helyzete Nagyromániában, Székelyudvarhely
[Odorhei] 1994, p.117.
19 The Concordate in: Official
Gazette, no. 126 of 1929.
JSRI
• No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 129
20 Jakabffy Elemér, A konkordátum, in: Magyar Kisebbség
VIII, 1929, p.444
21 Bratu, work quoted, p.14.
22 Jancsó Elemér, Az
erdélyi magyarság életsorsa a nevelésügyek
tükrében 1914-1934 , Budapest, 1935, p.13.
23 Cf. B. Kovács András,
Szabályos kivétel, Kriterion, Bukarest-Kolozsvár,
1997, p.27; Popa-Lisseanu, Gheorghe: Sicules et Roumains: Un procés
de dénationalisation, Socec, Bucarest, 1935., p.5; Russu I.I.:
Românii si secuii, Ed. Stiintificã, Bucuresti, 1990,
p.137.
24 Ghibu Onisifor: Prologomena la o
educatie româneascã, Culturã româneascã,
Bucuresti, 1941, p.341.
25 Nagy, work quoted, pp.135-136.
26 Balogh Júlia, Az erdélyi
hatalomváltás és a magyar közoktatás
1918-1928, Püski, Budapest, 1996, p.79-80.
27 R. Szeben András, Az erdélyi
magyarság népoktatásügyének statisztikai
mérlege a másfél évtizedes román uralom
alatt, in: Magyar Statisztikai Szemle XII, 1934, p.852.
28 Salacz Gábor, A magyar katolikus
egyház a szomszédos államok uralma alatt, Aurora,
München, 1975, p.66.
29 See Gheorghe Iancu, Contributia
Consiliului Dirigent la consolidarea statului national unitar român
(1918-1923), Dacia, Cluj, 1985.
30 Ghibu, work quoted, p.314.
31 Barabás Imre, A romániai
magyar nyelvû oktatásügy elsõ tíz éve
1918-tól 1928-ig in: Magyar Kisebbség, VIII, 1929, p.79.
32 Constantin Anghelescu, Activité
du ministère de l'instruction 1922-1926, Cartea româneascã,
Bucuresti, 1928, p.56-58.
33 See Ioan Scurtu, Gheorghe Buzatu, Istoria
românilor din secolul XX, Aideia, Bucuresti, 1999.
34 R. Szeben, work quoted, pp.885-886.
35 Ibidem, p.852.
36 The data used in the tables are drawn
the works quoted and from: The Statistics on Romanian Education for the
School-Years 1921/1922-1928/1929, Ministerul Instructiunii, al Cultelor
si Artelor, Bucuresti, 1932, p.493-494.
37 Balogh, op.cit, p.92-93; Jancsó,
op.cit, p.355-356
38 Ibidem.
39 Ibidem.
40 Ibidem.
41 Ibidem.
42 Same note 36.
JSRI
• No.3 /Winter 2002 p. 130