###

# The Political Paths of the Romanian National Movement

The political turmoil of the 1840s may have occasioned some surprise among members of the Romanian intelligentsia, but it did not catch them unprepared. Brassó's Romanian press reported favourably on the reform-oriented instructions given to the delegates from Kolozs County, but when the legislative proposal was {3-166.} made public, it vigorously opposed the clauses aiming at Magyarization: 'Romanians expected entirely different reforms, notably a requirement that there be a Romanian interpreter at all local authorities and offices' and that 'regulations be translated into the Romanians' mother tongue.'[165]165. G. Bariţ, 'Reflexii la descrierea românilor prin D.A. de Gerando,' Foaie pentru minte, 4/16 February 1846, no. 6. In fact, this demand had already been partially satisfied. The Gubernium had an official interpreter; moreover, after Joseph II had confirmed the custom with regard to German, testimonies in judicial proceedings came to be routinely translated and commented in the mother tongue. However, the Romanians wanted to make interpreters and translations mandatory in all spheres of public administration; institutional recognition of their language would serve modern social needs and offer better guarantees of their national survival. As the political debate unfolded, much of the Romanian intelligentsia perceived a looming threat to the cultural and political development of their national community.

The proposal that Hungarian supplant Latin in official use at the higher levels of administration did not affect the Romanians' existing privileges, and Hungarian was already the working language at the county level as well as in the diet. Yet Romanians regarded the campaign to extend the use of Hungarian as a threat to their own national aspirations. In light of the Hungarians' earlier expressions of interest in assimilating other nationalities, the Romanians may well have feared that the clause in the language bill requiring that, within ten years, Hungarian must be used in all church registers as well as in higher education, was a precursor of forcible assimilation. And while no decision was taken regarding the language of instruction in elementary schools, Romanians feared that Hungarian would become mandatory at that level as well.

The diet's action provoked an uproar at Balázsfalva, where an opposition movement emerged under the leadership Simion Bărnuţiu. The latter had some claim to be a philosopher, for he had {3-167.} drawn on Krug's Kantian notions of natural law, elements of liberalism, and the ideas of Herder to forge an argument for national self-determination. He extended the axiom, that man has a natural right to self-realization, to the level of national communities, and linked it to the new ideology of linguistic nationalism. In an address to the consistory, Bărnuţiu maintained that the 'character and nationhood of a people reside in its language,' which is the measure and tool of culture; language was 'inseparable from our soul and religious faith, from all those things that are most precious and sacred on this earth.' Linguistic communities had a right to nationhood, and, even in the current circumstances, it was inadmissible to rule on their fate without their consent. As an alternative to the vision of a unified Hungarian nation-state, Bărnuţiu proposed the model of a multinational state, and he stressed the cultural dimension of nationhood: 'All the peoples in Transylvania aspire to culture and happiness and want to achieve those goals in the way that is natural to them: the Hungarians in a Hungarian manner, the Saxons in a Saxon manner, and Romanians in a Romanian manner. These different paths are equally legitimate; we have been following them peacefully for centuries, and they all follow the same direction of human happiness and culture.'[166]166. S. Bărnuţiu, 'O tocmeală de ruşine şi o lege nedreaptă,' in Gh. I. Bogdan-Duică, Viaţa şi ideile lui Simion Bărnuţiu (Bucharest, 1924), pp. 201, 204. He questioned the moral consistency of the Hungarians' objectives, but he also spoke highly of Hungarian philosophy and of the diet's efforts at reform. Although Bărnuţiu did not evoke a fundamental irreconcilability of interests, he did refer to Romanians as Trajan's colonists, as people who never slept but prepare for great deeds; and this did conjure up an aspiration, based on historical right, to hegemony, a notion that was inconsistent with the humanistic ideal of a multinational state.

The Greek Catholic consistory at Balázsfalva took up the national cause by protesting against the Hungarian legislative proposals with regard to Romanian schools and Churches: 'We can never be compelled to accept a law that jeopardizes our faith and customs and brings degradation and destruction to the Romanian {3-168.} people.'[167]167. Ibid., p. 211. Only the bishops were in a position to take direct political action. Leményi chose not to raise the matter in the diet, but he did forward the consistory's protest to Vienna; and although he had urged his priests to learn Hungarian, he opposed any imposition of that language in church administration and education. He considered that it was simply not feasible to educate all Romanians in Hungarian; that the Romanians' numbers ruled out assimilation; and that the cited clauses in the language bill would have a harmful effect on the coexistence and interdependence of the Romanians and Hungarians.

The failure of the 1834 petition led Leményi to conclude that success depended on cooperation with the reform-oriented Hungarian nobles, and, in fact, the obstacles to such collaboration were gradually cleared away. The Hungarian opposition amended those parts of the bill that the Romanians found offensive, and some delegates called for legal recognition of the Orthodox religion. Saxons and Hungarians had cooperated in drafting the legislative proposals for social reform, but once that was completed, they started to quarrel again. Judging the moment propitious, the two Romanian bishops submitted a petition which reiterated the demand addressed by Bishop Moga to the 1837–38 diet, that is, 'associate nation' status for Romanians in the Szászföld and the Királyföld. The proposal was embraced with some enthusiasm by the liberal Hungarian press as well as by most members of the diet; tactical calculations played a part in this response, but the Romanian demands tallied with the Hungarian nobles' legalistic bias as well as with their understanding of liberalism. Hungarian liberals criticized the tendency of Saxon bureaucrats to restrict, on the basis of denomination and ethnic origin, the extension of rights, although the Saxons argued that such discriminatory measures (everyone in the Szászföld had to pay tithes to Lutheran priests, and local government posts were reserved for members of the recognized denominations) were legitimated by their ancient privileges. Since the Hungarian nobles, as a {3-169.} class, did not suffer from such problems, they could afford to set a precedent in the Szászföld. Leményi knew what he was talking about, and was not merely indulging in tactical cajolery, when in the diet he declared, on behalf of the entire Romanian nation, that 'since 1791, not a single Romanian social class or individual has ever been oppressed or excluded from public office on grounds of ethnic origin.'[168]168. Az Erdélyi Nagyfejedelemség s hozzá visszakapcsolt Részek három nemes nemzeteiből álló rendeinek Kolozsvár szabad királyi városában 1841-ik év november 15-ik napján kezdődött országgyűlésökről készített jegyzőkönyv (Kolozsvár, 1843), p. 715 (meeting of 31 January 1843).

Naturally, Romanians in the Szászföld backed the bishops' initiative, but so did Romanian nobles who had benefited from the privileges of their rank. Many concluded that, under existing laws, the Szászföld was the only region where the Romanians might obtain satisfaction of their national demands, and hoped that the representative system under a new liberal constitution would facilitate the gradual extension of their rights. A Romanian lawyer, Alexandru Bohăţel, wrote to a Hungarian newspaper in Kolozsvár criticizing the reaction of Brassó's Romanian press to the proposed language bill. Claiming to represent the views of 'several fellow Romanians,' he pointed out that the Hungarians' language bill did not put into question the use of the Romanian language in local government, and 'since Transylvania is a Hungarian homeland, let the sons of my nation, as Romanians, cultivate their mother tongue, and, as citizens, learn Hungarian.'[169]169. 'Boheczel Sándor ügyvéd több nemzetbeli társainak nevében is: Komoly szó a Gazeta de Transilvaniához,' Erdélyi Híradó, 3 March 1843, no. 18. These opinions were then endorsed by 'several Hungarian noblemen and civil servants of Romanian ethnic origin in the Kővár region,' who stressed that 'a Hungarian nobleman of Romanian origin has to take a different, and loftier view, for he is an integral part of the constitutional order.'[170]170. Erdélyi Híradó, 30 May 1843, no. 43.

On the other hand, the most influential teachers at Balázsfalva disapproved of their bishop's political initiative. The recurrent conflict between the Church's leaders and the intellectuals who worked in Church-controlled institutions flared up once again, and Bărnuţiu emerged as the leader of the dissenting teachers and rebellious students. Bărnuţiu's lectures, delivered in Romanian, on natural law {3-170.} inspired a sense of purpose in the students. Identifying their destiny with that of their community and nation, they convinced themselves that they had no choice but to serve the national interest.

Bărnuţiu wanted to turn the Church into the main advocate of the Romanians' cultural and political interests, but he challenged the bishop's right to take initiatives on behalf of the nation. Intent on winning a greater role for intellectuals in policy-making, he urged that a synod be convened. However, when Leményi refused to follow the path taken a hundred years earlier by Inochentie Micu-Klein, teachers as well as students rebelled against the authority of the Church. The clash occurred at Easter 1843. On Holy Thursday, the bishop engaged in the customary display of Christian humility by washing the feet of twelve students. When he excluded a student who had not kept the obligatory fast, the others made a show of solidarity by boycotting the ceremony. A few teachers rallied to the rebels, and the bishop proved unable to restore order. Finally, with the assistance of the authorities, Bărnuţiu — who a few years earlier had been a devoted disciple of Leményi — and the other rebellious teachers were dismissed, and so were a dozen student rebels. Assuming the role of national martyrs, the latter wandered around Transylvania inciting people against Leményi and undermining his authority; some of them ended up pursuing their studies at Kolozsvár's lyceum, while others took teaching posts in the principalities.

The government in Vienna took such a dim view of the events at Balázsfalva that it reimposed Latin as the exclusive language of instruction. For ten years, it held back from responding to Leményi's request that it allow the publication of a Romanian-language periodical. Organul Luminarei was finally launched in 1847, under the editorship of Timotei Cipariu. One of the victims of the 'Balázsfalva suit,' Alexandru Papiu Ilarian, was greatly impressed by the fact that the periodical was printed in the Latin alphabet and dedicated to popular education as well as to refinement of the mother {3-171.} tongue; he hailed it as the most important literary periodical in 'all of Dacia,' that is, in the Romanian language area.

The Romanian press in Brassó displayed a particularly broad political outlook. The notion that Transylvania's Romanians were an organic part of the Romanian nation was aired at Balázsfalva as well, but Bariţ was the first to offer a thorough elaboration of this principle. He argued that the Hungarian–Romanian relationship in Transylvania was the touchstone of coexistence between all Hungarians and all Romanians, and acknowledged that liberal social reform in Hungary could induce progress not only in Transylvania but in the principalities as well.

Bariţ observed that small nations sought to compensate for their weakness and sense of vulnerability by pursuing independent dreams of security. It was commonly said that the Hungarians harboured plans for restoring their kingdom to the greatness that it had enjoyed in the Middle Ages, and for annexing the Romanian principalities in order to guarantee freedom of navigation on the Danube. Bariţ did not set Dacia, the imaginary state of Emperor Trajan's colonists, against these ambitions; instead, he stressed that the two peoples were mutually dependent and fated to coexist. Hungarian liberals would be well advised to guarantee the national rights to Transylvanian Romanians, argued Bariţ, not least because this would facilitate friendly relations with the Romanian principalities and thus contribute to Hungary's security. His advice to the Hungarians encompassed both a warning and a solution: 'It would be better if you ceased alienating Romanians with such demands [i.e. the language bill] and extended a brotherly hand to foster the friendship that you need as well. Be aware that if you are ever to rule over the Danube, it will be only in close friendship with Moldavian–Romanians, and even then, only with Austria's support and encouragement.'[171]171. G. Bariţ, 'Românii şi maghiarismul,' Foaie pentru minte, 16/28 March 1842, no. 11.

Bariţ strove to promote a more sincere dialogue between the national movements. He felt that, in prevailing political circumstances, {3-172.} it was not advisable to go beyond an affirmation that the demand for recognition of the Romanians as the fourth 'nation' was just and reasonable; and, in that context, to allude to the possibility that Romanians obtain administrative autonomy in Hátszeg and Fogaras, regions where they constituted the majority of the lesser nobility. Bariţ was confident that if this demand was met, nobles who were Romanian or of more or less Romanian origin would back the national movement. This expectation was not unrealistic. László Vajda, who taught law at the Kolozsvár lyceum and had published scholarly works in Hungarian as well as Latin, had adopted a Romanian orphan. Brought up in a Hungarian family, the young lad forgot his mother tongue; yet, when he grew up, he affirmed his Romanian identity and became an earnest advocate of friendship between the two peoples.

The demand for fourth-nation status was not of purely feudal character. Born of realism, it aimed at a mutual recognition of the right to nationhood and was designed to mitigate tendencies to national hegemony. Nicolae Maniu, the archdeacon of Nagyszeben, disagreed with the demand for that very reason. He invoked the Romanians' historical rights, rooted in the Roman period, and wanted Romanian to replace Hungarian as the official language: 'We must claim all of Transylvania, which, by right, belongs to us, and recognition as Transylvania's nation, not as a fourth nation, which was never our status.'[172]172. Nicolae Maniu's letter to Bariţ, Nagyszeben, 3 June 1842; quoted in George Bariţ şi contemporanii săi III, ed. by Şt. Pascu (Bucharest, 1976), p. 28. The historical arguments in favour of national rights may have been well founded, but they failed to address the terms on which the various national communities might coexist. On the contrary, in a multiethnic region, this approach to statehood would make one ethnic group dominant, and the others subordinated to it, ruling out the possibility of equal national rights. Bariţ was justified in raising the question, 'Who shall we blame for the fact that Hungarians, Székelys, Saxons, Romanians, Armenians, and others were born in the same region, the same valley, on the same hill, by the same river? Why should we try to {3-173.} frighten each other by invoking the spirit of ancestors who are in their graves?'[173]173. Gazeta de Transilvania, 15/27 December 1847, no. 100.

True to his principles, Bariţ avoided insisting on equal rights for all nobles, an anti-Saxon tactic that was adopted some Romanians, notably Alexandru Bohăţel. Maniu, on the other hand, argued that Bohăţel 'was doing absolutely no harm in calling on Hungarians to demand less in Transylvania than they did in Hungary, that is, to limit their demand to making Hungarian rather than Latin the language of diplomacy (for the time being!).'[174]174. Maniu to Bariţ, Nagyszeben, 17 March 1843, quoted in G. Bariţ, Romanii, p. 32.

Bariţ did not elaborate a comprehensive political strategy. He reminded Romanians that they had a direct interest in the social and economic reforms that were promoted by the Hungarians. He feared that by acting precipitously, the Romanians might overreach themselves and lose their way in the labyrinth of politics; he recommended, instead, a posture of total neutrality until such a time as the positions of the opposing parties and the balance of forces had become clarified. Indeed, in the meantime, the Saxons' national movement was gathering momentum.