Small stories from everyday life 3. – The hunted life of an ordinary bookseller. Updated
One would expect that Ernő Révész (Ernest Révész according to official documents) was a very important personality of the interwar Târgu Mureş. He not only owned a bookshop, published works, built a house in the city, but he even had his own dossier at the Siguranta – not in the city but in Bucharest! What gave him such a significance? Books, what else?
Books: reproducing the „right” identity
From the point of view of conscious nation-builders Ernő Révész was a legitimate target of close supervision. He was a bookseller, who imported books from Hungary and also distributed publications from Romania. This activity – especially as these products were written in Hungarian – itself made him an important figure in a process, the existence of which was undeniable for many nationally-minded people. Reading in a language was treated as a way to reproduce linguistic identity and in case of certain contents also national identity. Books were conceived as important vehicles of the national idea, conveying and transmitting its „right” form. (A group of Hungarian intellectuals, all of them holding key positions in the Hungarian minority institutional system, after scrutinizing the reading customs of Hungarian university students, complained in 1930, that these younger Hungarians are reluctant to read the classic novels of Hungarian literature, their historical knowledge is based on literary pieces, and not specialized works etc. They very seriously described it as a threat posed to these young Hungarians’ national consciousness.) Because Révész sold books from Hungary, his activity seemed even more problematic, as the content of these publications hardly corresponded with the demands and desires of the Romanian state authorities. It was perceived – sometimes with good reason – as undermining the state’s authority, inciting resistance, and helping to preserve a Hungarian national consciousness that denied Romania’s rights over Transylvania.
Ways of control: content, effectivity
The most obvious way to counteract and control the flow of ideas was plain or hidden censorship. It applied for both internal products and import goods. To sell a book from abroad needed a special approval from the Romanian authorities, primarily – but not necessarily – from the special committee of the Foreign Ministry. However, it applied only to books distributed by companies in Hungary, whom were obliged to submit a copy to preliminary examination. Books imported by local firms could have easily landed at one of the internal censorship committees of the ministry of interior or culture. Even though these organs agreed in some key points what makes a dangerous (irredentist) work, their perceptions of individual books could have easily differ. For example the foreign ministry committee approved the distribution of the XIII and XIV volumes of the collected works of the Hungarian bishop Ottokár Prohászka (an important figure of roman catholic renewal, social catholicism and at the same time a marked anti-semite), they only demanded the erasure of initially six or seven, at the end only two paragraphs, while the General Staff’s censors insisted on a ban on the whole volumes. Anyway, the sate applied a series of measures to control import of literary and scientific works and at least theoretically, nothing could have missed their attention.
In reality Révész’s case proves the significant weak spots in this system. The state security became aware of his activity of importing and selling books from Hungary without any official approval after they intercepted a letter of his, addressed to a fellow bookseller in Oradea/Nagyvárad. The letter, in which Révész threatened his colleague to disrupt business connection if he is not ready to lower prices of books from Hungary, revealed a clearly effective and costumary way of smuggling. Simply order the books from Budapest sent as a simple parcel. Révész stressed in the letter that the direct delivery was fast, effective – without being detoured to Bucharest – cheaper and avoided censorship practices.
How was it possible to avoid censorship of the books sent directly from Hungary, when the Romanian state nominally applied a clandestine censorship on the postal traffic between Hungary and Romania? The state administration simply lacked the necessary capacity for this effort, especially as international postal treaties obliged the post – indirectly its owner, the state – to pay a high compensation sum in case a recommended letter was lost or even if just significantly delayed. The sheer amount of postal traffic made the thorough control of every item impossible, and centralization efforts (to bring every piece to Bucharest or to Cluj for censorship) made the situation even worse. Meanwhile, in case of a decentralized censorship process, the local officials were easily bribed, making control even more relaxed. Quite telling is he fact, that even though Révész was under supervision from his first encounter with the Siguranţa, he obviously continued his practice of unapproved import, the last search in his bookshop and in his home was carried out by the police in 1939. (They found nothing prohibited.)
„Női kézimunka értesítő”. The banal objects of revisionist propaganda
During the decades the officialities discovered a series of books illegally brought into Romania, considered as dangerous ones. Most of them was clearly confronting the Romanian historical narrative, some of them even denouncing the peace treaty as unjust and a result of devious practices so typical on the Balkans. Some of them was far from posing any real threat or challenge to Romanians, like the then popular youth novels written by Lola Kosáryné Réz. (Tibi’s team, Tibi on the sea, Tibi’s return), and in other cases supersensitivity was also clear. (A report on the book “History of Hungary” mentioned photos of forestry activity from Transylvania or the viaduct of Anina as problematic.) However, the authorities found the most alarming among all of them, and reacted the most hysterically to a very modest publication, the „Női kézimunka értesítő” (Women’s handicraft bulletin).
The publication from Hungary offered practical advices and models for womens to their everyday sewing and decorating work. It was brought into the country with the Romanian national colors printed on its corner and an attentive agent discovered that on the 46 page a photo, showing the Hungarian tricolor embroidered with the revisionist slogan “I believe in Hungary’s resurrection”, served as illustration. The authorities almost panicked. Even though Révész admitted to receive only 5-6 copies from Budapest almost a year earlier that he sold meanwhile and only one exemplar was found in the shop and none other in the city, the responsible chief of the censorship office in Bucharest wrote letters to every prefect, every county police commander, every county Siguranţa chief and the commander of the customs office asking them to carry out immediate actions to impede the distribution of the extremely dangerous material. And the obedient subordinates acted quickly. However, neither the Brăila office of the Siguranţa, nor the one from Turnu Magurele find any trace of the “Women’s handicraft bulletin” in the city.
Even though it is easy to treat the reaction as simply exaggerated it again reveals interesting aspects . If anyone would have worn the above described object this certainly would have caused official retribution. But it is quite improbable that the target audience was the group of Hungarian women in Transylvania. The article and the photo undoubtedly served as a kind of impulse, a push for everyone to make such easy-to-do objects bearing the well known slogan. However, expectation was only explicit in case of Hungarian women from Hungary.
The Romanian context rather redefined the meaning of the article and the object: while it was not possible to perform the requested action (that was somehow perceived as an obligatory act of national fervor) and wear the object, from the Romanian perspective it didn’t edged out the danger and made the publication harmless. As a part of a wast conspiration, a visual representation of something forbidden, it was still undermining the order. Morerover, as an item of popular culture, in a publication theoretically widely distributed (more widely than the specialized works or literary products), it was not confined to the intellectual elite or the urban middle class. The bulletin more easily reached the people, those who were seen for a while as possible converts, who can be dissociated from their intransigent leaders.
However reactions were vastly exaggerated even in this case. Révész was hardly a mass distributor of these products, the way he smuggled in books almost excluded an import of hundreds of copies. As a bookseller in a relatively small city he could make a good living from selling the „forbidden fruits” but had no means to affect popular sentiment on a broader scale. Probably even the Romanian authorities realized it. Although he remained a target of suspicion during the remaing years of the two interwar decades, he preserved his bookstore and his living.
(The material, serving as basis of this short text can be found in the ANIC DGP 8/1923 dossier)
Update: An illustration from “Flekken” satyrical weekly, 1934.
Iesit recent din tastaturile Mediafaxului (14:43), un interviu cu noul ministru al Culturii, KELEMEN Hunor.
Despre reactia clasei politice si a presei la numirea in premiera a unui maghiar la carma culturii nationale:
Sunt cetăţean român – e adevărat că sunt de etnie maghiară -, e patria mea, e şi moştenirea mea, dacă vorbim de moştenirea culturală, şi dacă vorbim de creaţie, tot ce se creează în această ţară, în domeniul culturii, undeva, îmi aparţine şi mie, aşa cum vă aparţine şi dumneavoastră şi fiecărui om şi celor care vor veni după noi. Deci, din acest punct de vedere, o astfel de discriminare n-ar fi fost justificată, pe de-o parte. Pe de altă parte, eu eram foarte surprins, în sensul cel mai bun al cuvântului, când m-am uitat, foarte puţin – dar am mai citit transcript-urile – la dezbaterile de la toate televiziunile, până la urmă – aici nu vreau să fac o diferenţiere – şi analiştii politici, în marea majoritate a lor, şi comentatorii, ziariştii au fost corecţi, chiar foarte corecţi.
Mai spune ceva si despre Biserica Ortodoxa si… si cam atat pe teme etnice. Cine se astepta sa vorbeasca doar despre Teatrul Maghiar de Stat din Cluj sibisericile din Kalotaszeg, va fi dezamagit*.
In schimb vorbeste, cu detalii, despre “digitizarea” culturala, paza cetatilor dacice, restaurarea monumentelor istorice. Si multe altele.
Puncte slabe? Un “deci” pus aiurea
R: Câte secretariate de stat vor fi în Ministerul Culturii ?
K.H.: Două. Deci (s.n.) am avut trei, Cultele au plecat, rămân doi secretari de stat
Alte greseli nu mi-au sarit in ochi, le las sa le “prinda” cititorii nostri, akik intelligensebbek mint mi** 
.
Kelemen Hunor vine cu experienta in domeniu, facuta inminister si Camera Deputatilor. Plus cu o pasiune pentru cultura pe care si-a aratat-o, printre altele, infiintand o revista. Si colaborand la una dintre cele mai vechi publicatii maghiare din Romania -Korunk (din 1926).
Vorbeste inteligent si pregatit, are CV bun… ramane de vazut daca se va ridica la inaltimea vorbelor si experientei anterioare sau daca se va lasa ingenuncheat de problemele banesti si de coruptia din sistem. Mai ales ca, oricat ar aprecia el corectitudinea presei, raman cativa jurnalisti care ii vor “vana” fiecare eroare.
De ce? Pentru ca este “venetic” (citez din comentariile halucinante ale lui Tiberiu Lovin*** ).
_________________
*si recunosc ca si eu ma asteptam sa vorbeasca mai mult despre patrimoniul din zonele maghiarofone, nu intotdeauna cunoscut la justa lui valoare printre romani. Oricum, sper ca mandatul lui Kelemen va continua, poate chiar grabi deschiderea catre interculturalitate pe care a inceput-o timid cultura romana dupa ‘89. Si nominalizarea Hertei Müller e un semn ca trebuie sa iesim din ghetoul nostru “mioritic” si sa aflam mai multe despre cultura minoritatilor din Romania.
**sloganul Academia Catavencu 
mersi Giza pentru traducere.
***un ziarist care, in rest, merita tot respectul.
The end of April 1910 started as a promising period for Ferenc Kovács, instructor at the Count Szapáry family. He spent a well deserved holiday with traveling, visiting – among many other cities – Dresden. He enjoyed not only the famous baroque arhitecture but the cultural life, attended the Opera and the gallery. As a teacher by profession and someone from Hungary, a country whose residents so many times felt themselves inferior to their Western peers, he was certainly glad to see a group of secondary-school pupils, wearing their uniform and Romanian national colors. He was probably curios and certainly eager to begin a conversation with the youngsters coming from an even more easterly country, who were introduced to the Western culture.
However, he was almost immediately shocked. As he described the event in a letter published by the Hungarian newspaper Brassói Lapok from Braşov when he asked them after their place of origin he was expecting to receive an answer pointing to a city like Bucharest, or Iaşi, not to Kronstadt (!). As soon as he learned that the young gentlemen were coming from a city of the Hungarian Kingdom he became furious above all expectations. He demanded from them to use the city’s Hungarian name, to speak to him in Hungarian and to abandon the Romanian national colors, as they were Hungarian citizens. Moreover, his anger had not relapsed until he found in the gallery a fellow Hungarian from Cluj, whit whom he acquainted two days earlier in the Opera, told him what happened and discussed the affair thoroughly with the equally horrified man.
In his letter, addressed to the Hungarian newspaper he expressed his astonishment over the possibility that the pupils could have wear Romanian national colors on their clothes, that they were not tought that such city as Kronstadt do not exist, that even though being „Hungarian subjects with Romanian mother tongue“ they dared to speak Romanian abroad. All in all he called them traitors of the homeland. A widespread debate ensued, newspapers from Cluj, Budapest etc. commenting the affair, demanding action from the government, Gazeta Transilvaniei defending the pupils and the orthodoy commercial secondary school in the city, claiming that the whole issue is a new proof of Hungarian intolerance, Kronstädter Zeitung taking sides with the Romanians.
The debate was closed by another letter from Germany, this time written by Aladár Koós, an assistant shopkeeper, that time living in Hamburg for ten years. In his letter he described his own adventures with the respective group. (According to his story he learned about the affair from the Hungarian newspapers and deliberately prepared himself to receive the pupils from Braşov and guide them through the Hansastadt in order to collect personal experiences.) He escorted them for three days, found them very polite, respectful. As he was not capable to communicate in Romanian they spoke with him in Hungarian and never used the dreadful word: Kronstadt. He concluded that it would have been better for the instructor of the Count’s family not to create hysteria claiming that if some pupils worn out caps were not lined with Hungarian national colors than Hungary is lost and not to be surprised when someone in Germany answers a question in German similarly in German.
The story in itself is again not significant, but gives some insight into the mood of the era and the problems of nationalizing space and defining national belonging and into the expectations regarding prsonal behavior attached to certain definitions. Who was Romanian and Hungarian from Kovács’ perspective and what did it mean for him? The concepts were rather confused and fluid, far from having strong contours. Wearing Romanian national colors meant for him being Romanian but only in the sense being citizen of the Kingdom of Romania, the territory of which covered only the Old Kingdom that time. Living as a Hungarian citizen, even if someone’s mother tongue was Romanian implied for him accepting the role of Hungarian patriot. But his concept of patriotism consisted strange elements, like speaking Hungarian abroad, wearing Hungarian national colors, using Hungarian geographical names. To sum up: identification with a Hungarian national idea, a much broader concept than citizenship and civic patriotism. (However, the demand to use Hungarian geographical names had its perverse basis in the latter concept, as those name were stabilized by law and adhering a law is a core element of civic patriotism. But its perversity is better shown by another case, when someone from Kosice/Kassa, in 1917 wrote a letter to István Apáthy, a professor at the university in Cluj asking him to intervene by the government because the German Army’s General Staff published its maps depicting the situations of the different theaters of war using exclusively the German geographical names.)
As the debate proved Kovács’ approach was very widespread and the public was flooded with nationalistic demands for retributions. But even this uproar can not veil the problems and inherent contradictions of such definitions. (Not to speak of the very clever point made by Aladár Koós: Kovács certainly asked the pupils in German because he also was not familiar with Romanian and the answer was correct, with the use of the German name of the city.) Nationality and citizenship was far from identical, and citizenship was distorted by attributes borrowed from the national idea. However, it could have trumped the nationality in certain cases. For Kovács it would have been legitimate from pupils coming from Romania to use Romanian or even German geographical names, even if they wouldn’t have been of Romanian nationality. (Maybe another case can be even more enlightening. Alexandru Citron was a jew – his religion was mosaic -, Hungarian citizen, working in the CFR atelier in Paşcani in the ’20s. When the Siguranţa became suspicious of him as a potential Hungarian spy they step up a data sheet collecting and specifying his personal data. They recorded that he is a jew by religion, and that his nationality is Hungarian and he is a Hungarian subject. However, according to the practice of courts in the same period in case of Romanian citizens nationality meant simply national belonging and Jews were considered as a separate nationality. If Citron would have been Romanian subject he would have been registered as Jew by nationality, but his citizenship trumped nationality.)*
Once again there are no far reaching conclusions. But maybe it is clearer that nationality can not be defined officially. Such definitions will inevitably fall short in some cases and incorporating others who are not ready to accept it.
* Citron’s case reveals another interesting aspect, the insecurity of borders. The data sheet was filled in 1924 at the first time and it registered the point where he arrived to the country, to Romania. Citron traveled in November 1919 and the police recorded as the border crossing point Oradea Mare – Predeal. Even though Romania officially claimed that the territories from Hungary fell over its sovereignty by the force of popular will immediately after 1 December 1918 the police accepted the ambiguous statement that maybe Citron arrived to Romania only after crossing the border between the Old Kingdom and Transylvania.
Primele urari de Craciun primite pe mess nu le-am primit nici de la un ortodox, nici de la un catolic, nici de la un protestant. Ci de la un ateu. Asa ca, daca restului ateilor* care ne citesc le urez “Vacanta placuta”, lui ii fac o dedicatie speciala:
Versurile aici, in al zecelea post din thread.
Cel mai mult imi place concluzia:
“Cause their buried faith ignited
while flying on United
to the Atheist Convention in LA”
Vacanta placuta, Tihi!
PS: Comentariile vor putea fi adaugate dupa Craciun.
*cum “Vacanta placuta” le urez si musulmanilor/evreilor/celor care sarbatoresc Craciunul in ianuarie
Auzite in tramvai : “Sa-ti traiasca ce-ai in casa/Copiii si dumneavoastra“.
Ma tot intrebam, va rog sa ma iertati, ce vor sa zica prin acest “ce-ai in casa”: mobila? frigiderul? aragazul? Ca “dumneavoastra” si “copiii”, lasand la o parte dezacordul, intra la “cine”!
Mai grav e ca versurile fusesera adaugate la “Deschide usa, crestine”!
Dar sa nu lasam astfel de fenomene sa ne intunece sarbatorile. Asa ca va urez tuturor care credeti/nu credeti dar tot sarbatoriti Craciunul si nu doar va bucurati de vacanta:
Craciun Fericit/Boldog Karácsonyi, sanatos si voios, pentru voi si cei dragi voua! Si daca nu mai scriu nimic pana la anul* va multumesc ca ne-ati fost alaturi patru luni*, si sa ne revedem recitim sanatosi in noul an!
Ady Endre (in ro), “Karácsony -Harang csendül” (pentru a intelege ceva, copiati textul aici)
shortlink: http://wp.me/pBAJx-ls
__________________________________________________
*ceea ce sper sa nu fie cazul, dar cand se pun sarmalele intre tine si blog, nu poti sa treci de ele 
**sau mai putin, nu conteaza. Pentru ca nu e important de cand te citesc oamenii, ci cat timp te vor mai citi de acum incolo
Serviciu Specială de Siguranţă
Târgu Mureş
19 decembrie 1921
Avem onoare a reportă că în noaptea de 14 Decembrie 1921 D-le Enea Popovici, secretarul Prefecturei atras în cafeneua „Corso” câteva focuri de revolver, pe când era la chef cu baronul Banfi şi D-rul Jeney ceea ce produs panica în cafenea şi a făcut ca lumea să a evacueze. După aceea cu revolverul în mâna a întrat în camera servitoarelor cafenelei şi sub ameninţare a voit să le violeze ceea ce le-a făcut să iasă desbrăcate în zăpadă.
Aducăndu-ni-se dimineaţă la cunoştinţă, am plecat la faţă locului şi am constatat două semne de glonţ din care unul având chiar glonţul înfipt în scândură lânga a oglindă. Când am început a face întrebări, ni s-a adus la cunuştinţă că Poliţia deja a chemat pe patron şi martori, aşa că ne-am dus la Poliţie unde am constatat ca de fapt au început cercetările. Dela primele vorbe schimbate cu şeful Poliţiei am văzut ca D-sa doreşte a muşamaliză această afacere considerând-o numai o simplă contravenţie de turburarea ordinei publice. Chemând la serviciu pe directorul cafenelei după amiază şi pe şeful chelner, au declarat câ Banca „Albina”, – care e proprietatea cafenelei – a şi luat înţelegere cu D-le Prefect, că nu face nici o reclamaţie contra secretarului, cu condiţiunea că d-l Prefect să admită că primaşul Balog Lajos să nu mai fie alungat din oraş şi a fi lăsat să cânte la cafenea. Nefiind deci reclamaţie, nu rămâne decât contravenţia.
Cu două seri mai înainte de această pe când un domn căpitan petrecea în cafenea şi-i cânta la masă Balog, d-l Prefect, care a venit cu încă câţiva inşî în cafeneua, ar fi spus ţiganului să-i cânte şi lui, ceeace ţiganul n-a voit, – ori pentru că cântase toată noaptea căpitanului, ori pentru că se dăduse ordin de către căpitan să numai cânte altcuiva. Această presupunere a făcut pe d-l Prefect – în virtutea nu stui cărei legi – să hotărească şeful Poliţiei de a interzice ca ţiganul să mai cânte în acea cafeneaci să fie alungat din oraş. În seara urmatoare ţiganul n-a mai cântat. Fiindcă acesta e un bun lăutar şi mare parte din clientela cafenelei venea pentru el, a fost mare lovitura pentru Banca „Albina” intrzicerea lui de a mai cânta, aşa încât a fost bucuroasă să renunţe la reclamaţia contra secretarului şi a-l avea în schimb pe Balog.
Notam că d-l Prefect, când a fost scandalul de acum câteva luni între footbalisti şi pfiţeri, la care cel mai vinovat a fost acest ţigan, a luat parte footbaliştilor şi a fost contra ofiţierilor. Atunci am înţeles să fi dispusi depărtarea din oraş ca element turbulent, dar acum nici un caz. Vorbînd cu d-l Prefect D-sa ne edclară că a luat măsura inderpărtări lui Balog că s-a convins că acesta cânta numai cântece ungureşti, nu penru ca nu i-a cântat D-sal. Ne întrebăm, de de acum fiindcă Banca nu mai face reclamaţie contra secretarului Perefcturei nu mai e de părerea că acest ţigan să fie îndepărtăt din oraş pentru că cântă numai ungureşte.
Acest mic exemplu vă poate face dovadă de câte stimă se bucură autorităţile din oraşul mostru faţă de populaţie şi în special de cea streină, care discuta tot a două seară în cafenea cu ţiganul, care mai ales acum jubila pentru căderea Guvernului şi deci a Prefectului.
Şeful Serviciului
ss. Stamatopol
p. Conformitate
El. Cioban
[ Arhivele Naţionale Istorice Centrale Fond Consiliul Dirigent, Secţia Prezidială, dosar 2/1922, 75.]
The above report portrays a small incident in many senses typical in a countryside town at the beginning of the twenties. The events described here were scandalous but not unheard of – as the way it was settled indicates – and it offers a lens through wich different aspects of everyday life can be revealed. Not only customs and behavior, but the relatiohsip between locals and authorities and ethnicity also. A very important aspect of the latter, the specific circumstances that activates it or at least invokes an argumentation based on ethincity/nationality.
Place and time
The events happened at the end of the year 1921 in Târgu Mureş. The city itself was inhabited predominantly by persons who gave as their mother tongue the Hungarian at the census of 1910. (23253 Hungarian, 2416 Romanian, 624 German, 26779 inhabitants. The conscription in 1920 found 23238 people with Hungarian nationality, 4774 with Romanian, 450 German 3267 Jewish out of 31998 inhabitants.) According to contemporary observers the raise of the number of Romanians were mainly a result of the „romanization” of the administration, a process that begun as early as in 1919. The leaders of the county administration were replaced by some Romanian leaders, delegated by the Consilul Dirigent and as a part of the public officials refused to take an oath of fidelity to the king of Romania or at least swear to execute the orders of the new Romanian administration thy were gradually removed. The same process started at the city hall as well.
However, the growing presence of Romanian officials didn’t changed the outlook of the city significantly. Although a part of the flats in the city were confiscated for the newly arrived officials (and in many cases for Hungarians as well) and the Hungarian language as the language of official inscriptions was at least nominally replaced by the Romanian (although in this case the same observers cynically mentioned that these regulations usually were only partially introduced), until major construction projects were finished it resembled its past as a city in the dualist Hungary, rather its future as a county seat of Greater Romania.
The exact date of the events is not really significant (albeit the prefect was an appointee of the government led by General Averescu, that was replaced by another led by Take Ionescu on the 17 December), it is the end phase of the transition period, everyone trying to accomodate to the new realities.
The public, the authorities and the local elite
The institution of the prefect – as its forerunner the Hungarian office of the Lord Lieutenant (főispán) – was a political one. The office was usually held by one of the politicians of the government party. While being the chief of the county administration, it was at the same time the representative of the center of power and traditionally held in high esteem as a member of the county elite. In this case it is clear that the secretary of the Prefecture – probably an intimate of the Prefect – entertained himself in the company of two prominent Hungarian figure, one of them even aristocrat in a coffeehouse. This kind of activity was quite typical, a part of the countryside elite’s life, what is interesting in this case is the participation of a Romanian official, despite the widespread perception – resulting from the portrayal of the minority era as a constant series of grievances – that Hungarians and Romanians were divided and rarely interacted. (Even if the Hungarians invited Enea Popovici in order to ensure some influence on the Romanian authorities, in the countryside life it was a way of acceptance. And Târgu Mureş is not a sole example. A year later the police chief in Făgăraş ordered the arrest of a group singing „irredentist songs”. Next morning they were released as it turned out that the group consisted the leaders of the Romanian National Party. They were just singing Hungarian popular songs.)
Unfortunately the series of events was also not uncommon, in this social environment, neither the shots, nor the attempt of rape or the eagerness of the police to dismiss the scandal. It indicates another important element: the arbitrary conduct of the authorities, that clearly diminished their otherwise not too positive standing. Presuming that it was not a sole occasion and looking at the way the problem was resolved – with a bargain in the background – the practice was far from the claims of rule of law and democratic administration as opposed to the conduct of the former Hungarian county officials.
Ethnicity and everyday, societal culture
What is revealed about ethnicity in this story? First of all its changing importance. For this social group – a middle class occupying the administration, aristocrats and other middle class individuals from the free professions – certain elements of a societal culture defined as part of its middle class existence were common. Not only the events of the night of 14 December can be subsumed under this category. The stories about the gipsy singing for the officer (some months ago for the football players), being the most important asset of the coffeehouse and continuously assaulted by the prefect in order to sing for him also portrays this cultural environment. In this context not only the figure has its importance but the songs – the typical Hungarian popular songs. Those are generally accepted as indispensable parts of this common culture. Thus, this cultural setting – otherwise having its ethnic/national content as well – in this specific situation could have be a unifying element and not a dividing line. (Sometimes it was also used to emphasize the difference towards people coming from the Old Kingdom and obviously not being part of this societal culture.)
But in some situation ethnicity became important, at least for one of the actors. Even though nobody interpreted the prefect’s order of expulsion as a nationally based action he thought it better to give this – clearly more acceptable – reason instead of admitting that jelousy was the main driving force behind it.
Another interesting aspect of nationality is the role of the bank Albina. Although this institution claimed to be a champion of national interest in this case very few of this eagerness of promoting romanism could be seen. They owned a coffeehouse, probably managed by a Hungarian, a favorite place of local middle class because they employed a gipsy musician who only sang Hungarian songs and they even made a deal with the Romanian prefect in order to keep this musician of theirs. In this situation national interest was not taken into consideration (most probably the concept didn’t even came to anybody!s mind) and only business interest had importance and influence on the decisions.
Conclusions
In situations that can be characterized as petty or banal ones national belonging and ethnicity not necessarily gained importance for the participants of different interactions. Even though posterity tends to conceptualize the period (and the preceding ones) as eras of constant national struggles encompassing every aspect of life, surprisingly many events can be found where the presumed national conflict lost its significance. Quite the contrary, possibilities of a common life emerged. However it didn’t mean that nationality lost its significance in its entirety, it was only insignificant among the given and specific circumstances and in a different situation or context it suddenly could become important. It also underlines the conclusion of a popular direction of contemporary anthropology: national identity is not given and present at every moment in an individual’s life, it rather something triggered by specific events and occasions, a contingency. Its appearance depends on social interactions, or the reasonability to use specific ways of argumentation and the idea of the nation and the national culture is far from being homogeneous, many elements of it can be a dividing line towards those who supposedly belong to the same national group, while the very same elements can offer a bound to others who are clearly not members of groups such as nations, but can be conceived as belonging to social categories like countryside middle-class.
PS. The attempt of rape is a very deplorable part of this whole world of the ’20s. And the conduct of the new administration was problematic in general, not only against minorities, complaints were widespread from Besarabia to the Banat.
Despre un cerc…
“Cercul Liberal al UDMR a condamnat, prin intermediul unui comunicat, manifestările extremiste din Cluj-Napoca şi Sfântu Gheorghe desfăşurate în 1 decembrie.
Dacă la Cluj-Napoca a fost un incident scurt generat de tentativa câtorva membri ai grupării radicale “Garda Maghiară” de a se manifesta în Piaţa Unirii, la Sfântu Gheorghe, în inima Ţinutului Secuiesc, organizaţia naţionalistă română “Noua Dreaptă” a ţinut să celebreze Ziua Naţională, fiind la un pas de încăierare cu membrii Mişcării Tinerilor din cele 64 de Comitate, altă grupare naţionalistă din Ungaria” (Ziua de Cluj)
Din comunicat: “Extremiştii noştri trebuie trataţi cu aceleaşi standarde ca şi ai celorlalţi. Sperăm ca toleranţa transilvană să nu fie numai istorie, ci o realitate a zilelor noastre” (vezi si la Tihi)
Nu e prima oara cand liberalii sau macar niste liberali din UDMR condamnda extremismul maghiar. De pilda Czika Tihamer s-a vazut cu numarul de telefon afisat pe un site extremist dupa ce a atacat in repetate randuri EMI si alte organizatii extremiste/radicale.
Insa e poate prima oara cand cercul lanseaza un comunicat anti-extremist in romaneste. Si e preluata de “presa romana” (de fapt doar 2-3 site-uri, din care majoritatea par agregatoare de stiri)
…si despre o groapa
Na jó, nagyon szép, de* restul UDMR ce face? De ce tace? Campania pentru primul tur a trecut, Kelemen (nu) si-a luat voturile cuvenite. Nu mai e nevoie sa asigure unitatea electoratului maghiar.
Cu fiecare manifestatie extremista in timpul careia UDMR se uita in alta parte, formatiunea parlamentara maghiara sapa o groapa. Frumos ar fi ca in ea sa cada mai-marii partidului (mai putin exceptiile liberale).
Nu, cei care se afunda in groapa urii romanesti, sapata de UDMR, nu sunt Bela&co. Sunt maghiarii de rand, a caror imagine se suprapune, in ochii romanului ignorant**, peste imaginea udemeristilor. Iar aceasta din urma este lipita, gratie mutismului oficial, de siglele vesele de la HVIM sau EMI.
Jó “munkát”, “barátok”!***
PS: Pentru romanii “verzi” care se vor grabi sa critice maghiarimea, la pachet: uite cum s-au purtat autoritatile “noastre” cu extremistii romani, la Cluj, de 1 decembrie. Pai sunt fascistoizii nostri, tricolori pe verticala, manca-i-ar tata! Cum sa ne atingem de ei?
______________________________________________________
*Na jó, nagyon szép, de=No binie, foarcie frumos, da’…
**atentie, nu zic ca toti romanii sunt ignoranti. Dar o foarte mare parte dintre ei, mai ales regateni, da.
***Jó “munkát”, “barátok”=spor la “munca”, “prieteni” (literal: munca buna, prieteni)
Distributia&ponderea romanilor, in Ungaria*
Cineva a vrut sa afle daca exista, si asa a dat de blogul nostru. Ii raspund in imagini si o voi lua in ordinea ponderii fiecarei etnii:
La intrare in Döbrönte/Dew(e)renten (maghiara/germana)
In Medgyesegyháza/Medeš (maghiara/slovaca). De remarcat ca pe 3 septembrie placutele slovace au fost vandalizate cu mesajul “NO FICO” , ca reactie la schimbarile aduse Legii Limbii in Slovacia. Un incident care aminteste, oarecum, de ce s-a intamplat la Sfantu Gheorghe, tot in luna septembrie.
Si iata ca, dupa placutele minoritatii germane (1,18%, in 2001) si a celei slovace (0,38%), sarim peste croati si ajungem la romanasii nostri (0,1%).
Uite, asadar, o placuta bilingva din
Kétegyháza/Chitig(h)az , iar la dreapta un panou cu “Bine ati venit la Ketegyhaza” (incadrarea cu rosu imi apartine)
si alta placuta, din Méhkerék/Micherechi (scuze pentru calitate). Bonus, desi un pic in afara subiectului, o poza cu Casa Satului, tot de acolo.
Surse foto: 1 , 2, 3, 4, , 5 & 6
Asa ca daca mai gasiti pe vreunul, printre postacii de ziar sau comentatorii pe Limba Cailor/Tihiczika, care sa scrie ca romanii din Ungaria nu au tablite**, ii puteti spune fara grija ca vorbeste prostii***. Si ii puteti da link la postul de fata.
Apropo de tablite, stie cineva cat trebuie sa reprezinte minoritatea intr-o localitate maghiara pentru ca aceasta sa fie obligata la semnalizare bilingva? Exista si reglementari privind numele strazilor?
_________________
*pe unitati administrativ-teritoriale
**asta nu inseamna ca nu risca pierderea identitatii. unii romani din Ungaria si-au pierdut-o deja. Despre acest subiect putem discuta si in comentariile la acest post.
***daca e s-o luam adlitteram, romanii nu au tablite bilingve, de vreme ce fiecare tablita este intr-o singura limba. Afisaj bilingv e un termen mai bun, in cazul Ungariei.
Consularile UDMR cu castigatorii incep (oficial) de luni.
Asteptam voturi si scenarii pe adresa redactiei
shortlink (pentru cine vrea sa dea mai departe) : http://wp.me/pBAJx-jH
mai tarziu: pornind de la procentul mic inregistrat deKelemen, mai mic decat proportia maghiarilor si decat scorurile de la legislative, Morar se intreaba daca e sfarsitul UDMR
Nu e, pt ca, pana in 2008, alegerile prezidentiale se organizau in acelasi timp cu cele legislative, si era normal sa obtina cam acelasi scor candidatul ca si partidul. Mergeau la pachet. Mai exact, candidatul era ca un ambalaj frumos colorat pentru un pachet mult mai valoros decat el.
Despartit de pachetul lui, candidatul UDMR atrage mai putine stampile. L-au votat unii ca sa isi faca auzita vocea maghiara (dupa cum ma lasa sa inteleg o prietena) , altii insa s-au orientat catre candidati romani cu sanse/care le plac mai mult. Asta nu inseamna ca la urmatoarele legislative UDMR-ul nu va putea obtine tot 6-7%.
[An announcement: Nelli offered me the possibility to post my thoughts regarding „Maghiaromania” at this blog. As I felt myself honored I accepted it and in the future I will try to come up with posts occasionally. However, two preliminary remarks are necessary: I will post in English, as my active use of Romanian is far from being perfect and occasionally I would use historical evidence or illustrations due to my profession.]
The recent events in Cluj – the opening ceremony at the Main Square and the protests of Hungarians, referred to in the previous post as well – offer some insight into an interesting process generated by ethnicity/nationality, the division and occupation of physical and geographical space by entities confined to the same space. The whole story gives a clear outline of the dynamics of the social processes and actions shaping the respective perceptions of an urban environment and highlights how much it is not a foreordained and perennial fact but the result of the very same social actions and interactions. In this sense the post is not intended to be a judgement of the mayor’s actions, a decision whether he or his critiques has right. I would like to emphasize that irrespective of being right or wrong, having the possibility to enforce one’s concept on the others, the social action has its significance in defining a space’s ethnic/national specificities and therefore official prescriptions and the power in itself is almost insignificant regarding the outcome of such conflicts or negotiations.
The story began with an attempt to renovate and reshape the Main Square of the city. The plans were published and generated some discontent immediately, along two – in some cases interlocked – lines: the fear of loss of the traditional cityscape and the fear of loss of the „Hungarian” character of the space. Counterarguments were put forward defending trees, making allegations that the whole attempt is only a prelude to the removal of the statue of Mathias Corvinus, while many people simply feared that the new outlook of the square will be too „foreign” for a space with a very coherent 18-19. century architectural setting. Although it was not hard to unite these two lines as well – the traditional outlook is part of the Hungarian legacy of the town and its alteration will remove its characteristic of the city, the division of opinions that time was not simply a replication of ethnic/national division of the city. Hungarians supported the changes and Romanians were among its opponents as well. (A short excursus in order to grasp better the fears among Hungarians: the fact that the main square remained the center of the city’s life instead of deliberate attempts to create a new center around Avram Iancu Square was a small but not insignificant triumph for many Hungarians and a sign that the city itself resists forceful reorganization, the „Hungarian” Cluj – let’s use from now on „Kolozsvár” – is an organic entity.)
However, the end (or rather a the temporary end) of the process generated a kind of uproar, not independently from the developments regarding the trilingual tablets, that led to a suspicion regarding the mayor’s intentions. When it turned out that the invitation for he celebration was only issued in Romanian and the culture of the Hungarians as such won’t be represented at the event, a group decided to organize protest and some time later they protested once again. The former protest caused some unintelligent remarks from the mayor, referring to the protesters as not being „clujeni”, only people from Satu Mare, while the protesters raised the interest of the media with the action and with their message of claiming the right of the Hungarian inhabitants to be represented. The latter one not only repeated this message but expressed other concerns, for example regarding the disappearance of trees from the square.
In order to better grasp the importance of social action it is appropriate to ask after the state of the square before and after the celebration and the protests. Was it „Hungarian” before the mayer gave it over to the public? Did it became „Romanian” after the ceremony elapsed? And if not, was it saved by the protesters? In the physical sense of the word the square remained the same, neither „Hungarian” nor „Romanian”, of course. The dead stones of houses and pavement could never convey such meanings. The square remained a historical cityscape and a center of urban social life as it was and probably will be for decades. The ceremony changed nothing and even though the new outlook is accompanied by ideas of a reconfiguration of some aspects of the social settings of the city, it is intended to reinforce and not to diminish the central role the square plays. (Although as in every case the expedience of the changes are up to discussion.) Moreover, despite the ceremony and the protest everybody is allowed to think of the space as being either „Hungarian” or „Romanian” or simply an urban space. The ethnicity of the space (if it exists at all) is not given, it is a result of interpretation. But not only result of the interpretation of the respective urban setting, but the interpretation of the action aimed at it or brought about in it.
This interpretation is not without limits, of course. The natural limitations are some very profound convictions of what is considered as being ethnic in one sense or in the other. A main square full of houses built in Brancovenesc style is hard to accept as Hungarian even if every inhabitant would only speak this language and would be supporters of „Jobbik”, an extreme right, nationalist organization in Hungary. But inside these limitations interpretation and contextualization has a very wide room in deciding whether a space is national, national enough, authentically national etc. Or it is not national just urban, modern, cosmopolitan etc. Or it is national but in the wrong sense, i. e. belongs to the other nationality/ethnicity.
Anyhow, what we have seen recently was nothing else than a series of actions in order to define and redefine the ethnic/national affiliation and content of the space. The mayor invoked multiculturalism, but in a very limited sense although quite typical in Romania: the nation state makes no deliberate attempts to eliminate the national minorities. The protesters not only pointed out how distorted this interpretation is, but accused the mayor of deliberately „Romanizing” the square and with their protest they aimed to object it, upkeep the space’s Hungarian character. The important point is that these actions in themselves were enough and capable to convey national character to the otherwise natural square. The space suddenly became either „Romanian” or „Hungarian”, belonging to one of them or to both. The action and the conflict made the necessary definitions and provided them for the participants. Moreover, it is not necessary for both parties to conceive the situation in ethnic/national terms, it is enough if one of them perceives the other’s actions as national ones and defines them as such. If there is an attempt to „Romanize” , „Magyarize” etc. the square the reaction could only be a counteraction defending the differing national character of the space. But it is a common feature of all of these attempts to conceptualize the square beyond being a space of edificies and a setting of urban social life, transcending it as element of nationality. (For example a Hungarian speaker of the second protest referred to the „meaning” of the square to Hungarians as something beyond the practical and experiemental.)
However, not only national interpretations of the space were present, but references to the existence of an urban community as the user of it. The mayor’s dismissal of the protesters as being „strangers” consisted this element, similarly to a Hungarian protester asked by a radio station’s reporter, who answered, that she initially had opposed the plans of reconstruction and knows that there are people among „the others”, the „majority” who felt similarly. And one can also mention the protests against the elimination of flora from the square. But these references remained distorted and subordinated to the broader definition of national space.
It is important to note, that in multi-ethnic/multi-national communities the process of the nationalization of the space is not a rare occurence, rather a normal social process. It is always a negotiation between differing aims and concepts expressed by social action or discourses, therefore conflict is inevitably. Moreover, it has its own history, just as Károly Molter, a Hungarian writer described it in an article on the situation in Targu Mures at the beginning of the 1930s. Molter mentioned the case of the Petőfi statute, that was removed by the Romanian mayor, Emil Dandea, and the remaining pedestal was renamed as the monument of the unknown soldier. However, according to Molter, the local Hungarian community simply reinterpreted this public mark, and referred to Petőfi as the unknown soldier, whose grave is similarly unknown…
In the case of Cluj/Kolozsvár it is not necessary to decide whether the protesters or the mayor had right. The series of action at the end reaffirmed the existence of a „Hungarian” main square, because there were Hungarians who claimed to have such a space there. And this claim could unite liberals and nationalists, as there is no need to deny the existence of a similar Romanian space – a reason for liberals to protest – although it is possible – the reason for nationalists. As not only ethnic/national interpretations of the public space prevailed, these ones were inextricably bound to more pragmatic ones (modernization) and used arguments borrowed from them as well, at the same time affirming the probability to define the city as a community of its inhabitants, and not only a co-existence of national entities.
But there is one serious objection in the way of accepting modernization from the present Hungarian point of view. Although they exercise the interpretation and reinterpretation of public spaces, for many of them the national content is not conveyed by these social actions, but by a given architectural setting of the space, as part of a nationally defined legacy and inherent element of their national culture. Due to this approach every modification of this setting is measured and seen as a loss from this national content and even if this loss is clearly not aimed to install a different national meaning, it is rejected. The social actions have to manifest the existence and defense of a given – and in this sense authentic – national space, and are not a way to occupy and nationalize it. The result, on the one hand: eternity. As long as the Main Square in Cluj will be surrounded by „Hungarian” palaces there will be a „Kolozsvár”. Even though there won’t be any Hungarian living there. On the other hand, fragility and defencelessnes: even if a significant part of the population remains Hungarian, they can’t preserve the Hungarian “Kolozsvár” if they can’t preserve the present cityscape.
nellibarbata