University of Bucharest

Faculty of Political Science

Crman Alexandra, Chiril Oana, Constandache Mara, Constantin Diana

Dragomir Mircea, Grlu Ana-Maria, Huanu Elena, Jipa Andrei

The Making of Greater

Romania

Romanian Government and Politics

Lect. Dr. Cristina Petrescu

0
 2010
Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to describe the changes, to present the premises that led to the building

of Greater Romania in the first decades of the 20 th century, focusing on the important political and

cultural aspects of the 19th and the early 20th century concerning our topic, and to focus onto what we

consider as being the stepping stone of national unity, the raising of national consciousness and the

means through which it has been risen into the minds of the Romanian people.

Being no surprise to anyone, the landmark of building the Romanian nation is the awakening of

national consciousness in all historical Romanian regions. We will follow these transformations and

analyze the most important moments for our study, such as the 1907 jacquerie, the 1 st World War, the

Union of 1918 and the international treaties that followed, the relevant reforms throughout the

second part of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th (such as the ones led by Spiru Haret or

Constantin Angelescu), as we said, focusing on the idea of national consciousness, which we

consider to be the primary factor for turning a state with internationally recognized borders into a

people.

The aspects of this topic are multiple, and we will focus primarily on the ones that we consider most

relevant: the combination of political and cultural changes around 1900, as we cannot see one

category without the other, as we will demonstrate that they are organically interrelated.

The central concept of this essay, as you will be able to see below, is Ernest Gellners idea of the

state as an educator. Having this point of view, we will analyze all facts mentioned above as episodes

of cultural transformations, relevant not only from a political point of view, but also seen as puzzle

pieces of a wider fresco, the general image of the Romanian people before and right after its

territorial unification.

1
The 19th century: the awakening of the national consciousness

Beginning with the 18th century, Romanian elites sought to awake the national consciousness of the

Romanian people using both cultural and political means. Not yet forming a unitary state, the

historical regions Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia, obviously, had distinct programs when it

came to rethinking and rebuilding the political and the social status.

Until the 1848 movement, Moldavian and Wallachian elites were more keen on their own

economical and political privileges, while the Transylvanian elite was more concerned about gaining

the right for the Romanian people in Transylvania, who, being under the Hungarian domination,

lacked most of their social rights.

The 1848 revolution constituted the first important step in creating a unitary national consciousness

using cultural means, mostly developed in Transylvania by The Latinist School (coala Ardelean).

The 1848 generation was the first to promote the Making of Greater Romania. This idea was the

stepping stone of the awakening of the national consciousness. One of the first results of the 1848

revolution was the Unification in 1859, under The Alexandru Ioan Cuza regime. His educational

reforms stressed upon raising awareness concerning the unity of language, history and geography of

the Moldavians and the Wallachians. The next important step in the making of Greater Romania is

the gain of national independence. Once independence was achieved, the political elites concentrated

their efforts in fulfilling the Romanian dream: the unifications of all Romanian territories that were

previously under foreign rule. In order to achieve this, political elites developed into political parties,

offering coherent solutions. The main actors were The National Liberal Party and The Conservative

Party, which all together influenced all the way until 1918.

2
All in all, the 19th century can be seen as the beginning of our nation building process that will

follow.

Greater Romania- 1st WW 1918

Even though the 1st World War began in 1914, most of the political representatives decided that

neutrality is the best option, in spite of their own opinions and even in spite of the will of Carol I.

The neutrality was decided by the Crown Council at Sinaia (the 3 rd of August 1914). Even after

Carols death, the leading party (the Liberals) left aside their preference for Entente and waited for

the perfect international context in order to get complete guarantees and support from the Allies for

the Unification.

In 1916, after the Russian offensive in Galicia revealed the Austro-Hungarian military weakness and

rumours about a peace treaty between The Allies and The Central Powers were spread, the

Romanian Prime Minister, Brtianu began to think about breaking the neutrality. The main reason

was that if the belligerents reached a settlement before Rumania had entered the war and had thus

'earned' a right to share in the spoils, the opportunity to create a Greater Rumania would be lost.1

Therefore, on the 16th of August 1916, after the diplomatic offensive of the Allies, the treaty was

signed. The main request of the Romanian Government was the guarantee of the right to unite with

the other Romanian regions under foreign rule at that time. Even though Brtianus goals were

considered unrealistic, Romania received the guarantees including the right of equal treatment at the

Peace Conference. Yet, if its goals could not be reached, Romania would be forced to accept less

than what the treaty stipulated.

As a result, on the 27th of August, Romania enters the war against Austro-Hungary and the next day,

Germany declares war on Romania. Next to declare war on Romania were Bulgaria and Turkey.

1
Keith HITCHINS, Rumania 1866-1947, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994, p.261.

3
The first phase of the war began on the night of 27-8 th of August 1916 when Romanian troops

crossed the Transylvanian borders. Despite the initial successes in securing the main Carpathian

passes, the Romanian army, inadequately equipped and trained, had to halt the offensive in

Transylvania hence the Bulgarian army supported by German forces attack in the South. Under the

lead of General Averescu, who gained a huge amount of popularity during and after the war, the

Romanian Armys objectives were accomplished. Yet, the second Austro-Hungarian offensive under

the lead of General Falkenheyn weakened the Romanian army and lead to a defeat. After the defeat,

the Romanian army retreated eastwards and on 6th of December the German troops led by General

Von Mackensen entered Bucharest. Helped by the French Army, Romania reorganized its troops

until May 1917, when enters the war once again after almost a year.

In the second phase of the war, hostilities began on the Moldavian front, where, under the command

of General Averescu, the Romanian Army took the offensive on the 22 nd 1917 and came out

victorious at Mrti. The second (Mreti, 6th of August) and the third (Oituz, 8th of August)

offensives slowed down the German troops. The Rumanians had thus survived the all-out effort of

the Central Powers to force their capitulation.2

Furthermore, by the end of the summer of 1917, the socialist revolution in Russia influenced the

Moldavian situation: the population, weary of war, fancied with the idea of signing the peace treaty.

Although the March Revolution destabilized the Moldavian front and forced Romania to sign the

peace treaty at Buftea-Bucureti on the 7 th of May 1918, it opened the option for the union with

Bessarabia. On the 27th of March 1918, Bessarabia united with the Old Kingdom. On the 10 th of

November, Romania re-entered the war and on 28 th of November the union with Bukovina, former

under the Austro-Hungarian rule, was achieved. On the 1st of December 1918, the events in

2
Op. cit., p.269.

4
Transylvania took a similar course and it was the last region united with Romania. Thus, after the

union of Transylvania, the constituent parts of the expanded Romanian national state came together.

At the end of the war and during the struggle for the Great Union, Brtianu prepared for the expected

obstacles he was sure Romania would confront with at the peace conference. At the Peace

Conference in Paris, Brtianu insisted that Romania was promised in the 1916 treaty to be treated as

a full Allied partner. He also required the union with Bessarabia, even though this region was not

stipulated in the 1916 treaty. In contrast, the Allies treatment came as a shock. Yet, the most

important issue for Brtianu was Transylvania. Due to his determination to obtain every inch of this

region, he sent the Romanian Army using the pretext of a counter-attack. He went deep westward

and obliged the Hungarians to go back eastward. The obstacles in settling an agreement between

Romania and the Allies were the borders and the minority policies. Facing the opposition at the

Peace Conference in Paris, Brtianu finally resigned. The next government, lead by Arthur Vaitoianu

resigned for the same reasons. The Alexandru Vaida-Voievod Government reached an agreement

with the Allies in both problems, especially the one concerning the minority policies, in order not to

jeopardize the gains already made and to re-establish good diplomatic relationships with the West.

Finally the Great Union is confirmed by the Allies throughout a series of treaties. On the 9 th of

December 1919 the Union with Bukovina is confirmed. Throughout the Neuilly-sur-Seine Treaty

(10th of December) between Romania and Bulgaria the gains from the Second Balkan War

(Cadrilaterul) is sanctioned. The Union of Transylvania is internationally sanctioned throughout the

Trianon Treaty, signed on the 4th of June. This treaty states that Transylvania, including eastern

Hungary (Arad, Oradea) are now parts of Romania. Even though the Bessarabia matter was the most

difficult to overcome, on the 28th of October 1920 in Paris, the Council of Ambassadors reached a

settlement and left the terms of the treaty to be negotiated directly by Russia and Romania.

5
The lay-out of Greater Romania

The new territorial acquisitions of Romania added 156 000 km 2 to the 296 000 km2 (in 1919) and 8

millions inhabitants to the 16 250 000 of the Old Kingdom. After the First World War, Romania

became, after Poland, the second most populous country in East Central Europe. As a result of the

Great Union, the new national state integrated a substantial number of minorities. The most

important minority were the Magyar (9.3%) in Transylvania, followed by the German (4.3%),

Ukrainian (4.7%) and the Russian minorities. Both in the Old Kingdom and the new provinces, the

Jews (5.3%) remained one of the most important minorities. As Keith Hitchins states in his book

Rumania 1866-1947, also the productive capacity increased as a result of the Great Union: the

industrial potential of the country in 1919 was 235 per cent of what it had been in 1916, an increase

for which Transylvania and the Banat were mainly responsible.

The main problem after the Great Union was the urban-rural balance. Despite the fact the Romanians

formed 71.9% of the general population; they composed only 58.6% of the urban population 3. The

Old Kingdoms urban elites were Romanian, but in the new provinces the towns-people were mainly

minorities. In this situation, the state began to rely on the peasants, since Romania was 80% rural.

Moreover, the peasant became the symbol of the nation and the ally of the state and was invited to

become educated, to enter the middle class, to move to town, to join the bureaucracy, or to take an

industrial, or more often, a commercial job. 4 The new lay-out of Greater Romania required and,

what is more, in order to fulfil the nation building process, the nationalization of the towns, urban

elites and cultural institutions was mandatory.

3
Dumitru ANDRU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and
London, 1995, p. 8, footnote 13.
4
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 11.

6
Education: the catalyst of nation building

In order to show the importance of education in the process of nation building, Irina Livezeanu

quotes the nineteenth century Italian Massimo dAzeglio, emphasizing the idea that, usually, a

pattern is followed when it comes to unifying a new-born national thought: << We have made Italy,

now we must make the Italians>>. One might usefully paraphrase him in regard to interwar

Romania: once (Greater) Romania had been made, there remained the formidable task of making the

Romanians.5

Consequently, Irina Livezeanu mentions a cultural and educational explosion6, which can be

explained through the need of assimilation of the national minorities into a wider cultural Romanian

matrix. This change comes naturally after a long period in which cultural products in the provinces

under a foreign rule didnt reflect a Romanian character.

The importance of the education in the process of nation building has been emphasised by the

modernist school of students of nationalism. The most important figures are Benedict Anderson

and Ernest Gellner. E. Gellner reminds the use of educational institutions as a powerful instrument

of homogenization7. In spite of the idyllic image envisaged by the nationalists, the Great Union of

1918 inaugurated ground-breaking cultural transformations 8, this being a fact that validates

Gellners assumption of education as catalyst of nation building. Ernest Gellner also talks about the

new developed clerking skills9 in a new-born national state. The recruitment of new elites requires

these clerking skills in order for a new urbanized society to function properly. Moreover, Gellners

theory about clerking skills depicts a kind of cultural change, which consists in how individuals,
5
Op. cit., p. 18
6
Idem.
7
Idem.
8
Idem.
9

7
previously unschooled, have to forge a new cultural environment and, at the same time, to adjust to

it. John Plamenatz details a new emerged paradox of the latter process: the imitation and the

rejection at the same time of a new urban, alien culture.

The role of the state as an educator and the fact that education is catalyst of nation building is

recognized even by sharp critics of modernist like Gellner, such as Anthony Smith. He argues the

nation is a mass educational enterprise. Smith states that the cultural revolution of the educator

state comes as result of the economic or industrial revolution and the bureaucratic-military one10.

Therefore, cultural reforms come as a need in order to solidify the new-born nation-state of

Romania, as we will now prove.

1010
Anthony SMITH Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and
London, 1995, p. 20, footnote 37.

8
The first cultural offensive. The Spiru Haret reform

Spiru Haret began his career as a secretary of the Ministry of Education, Dimitrie Sturdza in 1885. In

the following years, he himself was in the position of Ministry of Education in three liberal

governments. In this position he promoted his theory, widely discussed in his 1905 work The

peasant question, about how to improve the peasants situation through education. In order to

change the face of the countryside11, Haret mobilized the rural intelligentsia in order to help with

the rural banks and to lead extracurricular classes, such as reading circles, adult literacy classes and

conferences. From this point of view, Catherine Durandin considers this reform a militant

campaign.

The two innovations of Spiru Haret are the placing of the rural priorities over the urban ones and

the theory with the practical matter. 12 Through his reform, Haret managed to open two thousand

new primary schools and 1,700 new teaching posts. The number of pupils was doubled to 600,000

and the literacy level rose to 39% from 22% of the population.13

1907: ethnic background or a result of the enlightened populism?

1111
Catherine DURANDIN Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 31, footnote 11.
12
13
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p.36.

9
On the 21st of February 1907, an uprising grew out of a minor dispute between the peasant from

Flamnzi, a village in Botoani County and the manager of the estate owned by The Fischer Trust. At

first, the peasants protested peacefully, but then they began to occupy the estates of the landlords.

Furthermore, the jacquerie spread to the whole territory of Moldavia and Wallachia. In the end, the

Army was called to put down the violence. Seen as a national tragedy, the uprising resulted in 11,000

deaths.

After the jacquerie, both Conservatives and Liberals tried to bring new solutions to the so-called

Peasant question. The liberals, now in power, returned to Spiru Harets view on the problem,

depicted in his work The peasant question (published 1905, republished 1907).

There are two main hypotheses concerning the origins of the 1907 jacquerie. Romanian historians

such as Georgescu and Ilincioiu wrote intellectuals as an important link in the class struggle of the

countryside14 through the new extracurricular activities organised and supported by the government.

This hypothesis is a logical assumption of the report Spiru Haret wrote for King Carol I shortly after

Haret became Minister of Education again in order to minimize the role of rural intellectuals in the

radicalization of the peasantry15. As a result, Harets reform is seen today as corroborating by

factors fostering a spirit of dissatisfaction.16

On the other hand, the jacquerie is also considered as having an ethnic background. This hypothesis

is supported by recent historians like Markus Bauer, who, in an article published in Western Europe,

defines an anti-Semite background of the uprising. 17 This point of view is contradicted by previous

research such as the one conducted by Keith Hitchins, who in Rumania 1866-1947 states that no

difference was made between Christian and Jewish oppressors.

14
Constantin ANGELESCU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 34.
15
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 33.
16
GEORGESCU and ILINCIOIU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 33.
17
Markus BAUER, Rscoala: the last Peasants revolt, History Today, vol 60, issue 9.

10
Altogether, no matter the problematic details presented above, the 1907 jacquerie represented a very

important premise for the reforms that followed after 1918 Union, apart from his social meaning.

The second cultural offensive: The reform of Constantin Angelescu

One of the problems of the interwar educational reforms, as seen by Irina Livezeanu in Cultural

Politics in Greater Romania is the imitation of the Spiru Haret heritage. Now, the social

mobilization as a result of educational reforms, as evidenced by the 1907 jacquerie could be used in

order to make the state secure and the nation united. 18 Furthermore, the two goals of the second

cultural offensive are the erasing of the regional boundaries rather than social ones and the fight

against the difficulties of the Romanian nation as a whole (rather than against the hardships of

peasant life).19

Constantin Angelescu, Minister of Education under the Liberal Government, continued Spiru Harets

work and sought to accommodate more pupils through a vigorous campaign of construction and

renovation of school buildings. Between 1922-1926, 4,700 new primary schools have been built, 268

have been bought and 889 underwent radical repairs with governmental financing. The second

reform of Angelescu led to the increase of the primary schools number, reaching 17,385 in 1937-

193820. Aside other statistical issues, another important aspect of the second cultural offensive, lead

by the liberals, is the newly risen competition between provinces. One of the tasks of the Old

Kingdom was to catch up with the new provinces21, increasing the number of schools and

changing the curricula. For instance, the Decree passed on the 9 th of September 1919 was due to

18
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 35.
19
Idem.
20
Constantin ANGELESCU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 36.
21
Idem.

11
encourage the establishment of gymnasia and girls school and the transformation of gymnasia into

lycees declared.22

The reason for these changes, as Angelescu stated them, is that the universal suffrage and the land

allotment for the peasants have also transformed the material and morale state of this population.

This situation therefore imperiously demanded that the popular masses be cultivated and

enlightened in the shortest possible time and in the most profound way.23

Mass participation in the educational process is shown also by the school committees, another

innovation of Constantin Angelescu. This school committees helped on one hand the interwar states

budget to sustain the rapid expansion of the school system and, on the other hand, played a role in

generating enthusiasm for the schools, especially among the rural population, by harnessing popular

energy and financial resources toward the project of school expansion.24

Criticism on school expansion

During all the interwar period, the Liberals returned to power and continued their reforms. One of

most ambitious programs of the Liberals was the Angelescu reform. His program of school

expansion was criticised by important cultural figures, such as P.P. Negulescu, former Minister of

Education under the Averescan government and Dimitrie Gusti, Romanias foremost interwar

sociologist and minister of education under the National Peasant government in 1932-1933.

Both Negulescu and Gusti saw Angelescus reform as an unsound one. Negulescu refers to the

<<excessive dilution>> of teaching since the war, aggravated by the <<dizzying multiplication of

22
Idem.
23
Constantin ANGELESCU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 37.
24
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 39.

12
normal schools, lycees and gymnasia.25 He comments on the improvised teaching staff which will

lead to poor-quality schools for the following thirty five years. The school committees reflect, from

Negulescus point of view, the governments lack of direction.

Similarly, Dimitrie Gusti viewed Angelescus school reform as hyperbolic and unrealistic 26. Gusti

considers this phenomenon of school expansion as a result of the post-war exuberance. This point of

view is shared also by Vasile Bancil, who states the need of a state with fewer cadre, more suited

to the structure of a people of peasants.

Furthermore, one important reaction came from the Jewish minority. Wilhelm Fildermann, the

president of the Union of Romanian Jews, points to the reforms general lack of solidity: without

buildings, without a teaching staff worthy of the name, you continued to spread yourself on the

surface, spreading thinner and thinner that which you pretended to consolidate.27

Criticism on the school reform of Constantin Angelescu emphasises the shortcomings of the

accelerated centralization of the educational process, which is considered mostly superficial. The

immediate result of the centralization is the integration of the new regions in a non-optimized

already existing system, the one of the Old Kingdom.

In practice, during the transition process, centralization met the opposition of the newly incorporated

regions. Although Angelescus goal was the union of the four school systems through transitional

autonomous educational institutions, in practice, these were considered as being counterproductive,

thus they were put to an end. As a result, the elites from the new regions protested against the

centralization, demanding a gradual fusion. For instance, the great Romanian Transylvanian

nationalist educator, Onisifor Ghibu considered the rapid unification of the educational system an

25
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 39.
26
Idem, p. 40.
27
Wilhelm FILDERMAN Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 40.

13
absurdity28. To Ghibu, the artificial centralization meant ignoring the spiritual heritage of the newly

incorporated Romanians.

Acts of sabotage of the unification process was something common. For example, the Bukovinian

Education Secretariat resisted giving up its autonomy by refusing to honour Old Kingdom tenure

lists and refusing to recall minority inspectors. It made appointments without ministerial approval, it

did not welcome transfers of Old Kingdom schools to Bukovina and it opposed the unification of the

lycee program of study with that of the Old Kingdom.29

The Bukovinian example shows the need to adapt gradually the social reality from every region. In

contrast, being a political issue, the centralization became a matter of competition between political

parties in the Old Kingdom. The Liberal Party, having Constantin Angelescu as the Liberal Minister

of Education, came victorious.

Until the transitional institutions in the newly incorporated regions were suspended, the Liberals

aborted the unification initiative, which was seen more like standardization. Onisifor Ghibu and the

Transylvanian elites wanted, for instance, something deeper than a unification of external forms. He

compared the situation in schools with that of the Romanian Army in 1919. At that date, the

Romanian army was getting ready to go on the offensive against the Hungarians. Although its

soldiers wore very different uniforms: Romanian, Hungarian and Russian - as they had come out of

the revolution - [the army] was spiritually completed unified. That general would have had to be

mad, who in those moments would have figured that the first thing to do was to unify the soldiers

uniforms.30

Although Ghibu lauded Angelescu for taking into account the Transylvanian resistance and therefore

postponing the reforms, by 1922, the Liberal return to power. These autonomous tendencies had
28
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 42.
29
Idem, p. 43.
30
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 45.

14
been weakened by the dissolution of the Directing Council in 1920 and the subsequent liquidation

of the general secretariats and directorates31, the Liberals were free to impose the educational

unification. In this context, a new parliamentary debate on school reform between Transylvanian

elites and the Liberals from the Old Kingdom emerges. The content of the debate will be widely

discussed in the next chapter.

The educational reform of Constantin Angelescu had both democratizing and centralizing character.

The Liberals understood the need of building the nation through education and the peasantry as an

elite reservoir to counter-attack the influence of the non-Romanian elites from newly incorporated

regions. On the road to reaching this goal, the Old Kingdom, as the primus inter pares among the

united Romanian provinces imposed as a role model, even though it was a deficient one.

The main problem wasnt the unification as such, but unification insensitive to local needs and to

institutions like the Orthodox and Uniate churches - the heroic bearers of Romanian culture in

Transylvania.32 Consequently, the task of the Liberals offensive, consolidating both the nation and

the state by imposing centralized cultural institutions, met strong resistance in Transylvania.

The Transylvanian offensive to the cultural offensive

In order to add his bill on the list of the Liberal Partys achievements, Angelescu hurried the

unification of the primary schools, considered essential to cementing Romanians spiritual unity 33.

31
Idem.
32
Idem, p. 48.
33
Constantin ANGELESCU Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 46.

15
After the dissolution of the territorial autonomous expertise institutions, the Liberals imposed their

own views, neglecting the Transylvanian elites. Therefore, Angelescus reforms were perceived as

assertions of Liberal Party strength and of the Regats ascendancy over Transylvanian traditions and

institutions.34

One of the problems was the exclusion of the Transylvanian elites from the drafting process. Their

experts suggested that the reforms should be written by a depoliticized pedagogical constituent

assembly, which should consist of former ministers of education, former secretaries of education and

church and minority representatives.

One of the key issues of this debate was the one of the Uniate and Orthodox churches. These

churches have been, for hundreds of years, the institutions that kept together the Romanian schooling

system in Transylvania, under Hungarian and Austrian domination. The main supporters of the

Transylvanian individualism were Onisifor Ghibu, the Orthodox Transylvanian Metropolitan

Nicolae Blan, Uniate Bishop Hossu and Vasile Goldi, one of the leading members of the National

Party. The resistance fought against the etatization of local Orthodox and Uniate schools.

The supporters of the reform used as an counterargument the fact that the state was now nothing but

the organized kin35. In this context, the Transylvanian authonomy would have meant a division of

purposes, something unnatural, because sons of the same country should have the same ideals and

aspirations.36

After several parliamentary debates, the Liberals imposed the bill, even though it attempted to

usurp the regional and the institutional base of Transylvanian patriotism, on behalf of the Greater

Romanian state.37

34
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 46.
35
Idem, p. 47.
36
MINISTERUL INSTRUCTIUNII Via Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 47.
37
Irina LIVEZEANU, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995, p. 47.

16
Despite the aggressive manner of applying the centralization, the regional autonomy did not

constitute a realistic alternative. The main problem of this debate was the fact that both the

Transylvanians and Regeni tried to prove the superiority of their systems, not bearing in mind the

fact that the situation had changed and the system that would impose from then on had to work on

every inch of Romanian ground. From this point of view, the Liberals actually would have had a

strong point. Moreover, the political resistance is one of the most natural political means, however,

in Romania, this did not lead to a lucrative synthesis, but it was a matter of rhetoric, of imposing a

pattern.

Knowing this, could we think that the winning system might have been the wrong choice imposed

for good reasons?

Case study the Transylvanian alternative

Leaving aside for now the political, national and nationality factors, widely discussed by C.

Giurescu38, for which Transylvania has always been Romanias ethnic reservoir (cf. C. Giurescu), we

will only discuss the cultural factors concerning the theory of Transylvanian superiority.

38
Constantin C. GIURESCU, Transylvania in the History of the Romanian People, IN Dinu C. GIURESCU and
Stephen FISCHER-GALAI (eds.), Romania: a Historic Perspective, East European Monographs, Boulder, pp. 235-
260.

17
In the same article mentioned above, Giurescu also outlines an outstanding list of reasons for which

Transylvania could be considered the cultural cradle of Romania.

From the oldest monuments of ecclesiastical architecture until 1918, Giurescu offers a wide view of

the most important achievements of Transylvanian culture - first ecclesiastical texts translated into

Romanian, the first ever printed Romanian books (having Deacon Coresi, the renowned Romanian

printer); the Transylvanian intelligentsia pleaded for the Romanity and unity of the Romanian people

ever since the 17th century (Inochentie Micu-Klein, The Transylvanian School - Samuil Micu, Petru

Maior, Gheorghe incai etc.); the fight for the introduction of the Latin alphabet; major contributions

for the development of science (Victor Babe, Traian Vuia, Aurel Vlaicu, Nicolae Teclu), humanistic

studies (Ioan Bogdan, Iosif Popovici, Emil Petrovici, Sextil Pucariu, Neculai Densuianu, C.

Daicoviciu, Vasile Meruiu etc.); economics (Dionisie Pop Marian, Visarion Roman); literature (Ion

Budai-Deleanu, Liviu Rebreanu, Ioan Slavici, George Cobuc, Octavian Goga, Lucian Blaga, Ion

Agrbiceanu); arts (monasteries, Bela Bartok, C. Lecca, Carol Pop de Satmary, Gheorghe Dima).

Even though Transylvania has brought an important cultural heritage when united with the Old

Kingdom, a simple inventory of achievements is not enough, for we also have to see the impact

these have had upon the national spirit. Regarding the myth of Romanian unity, widely discussed by

Lucian Boia39, we must say that this myth has flourished on Transylvanian cultural grounds. The best

example is historiography, which makes the first step to unity through the chronicles of Gheorghe

incai, where history is for the first time treated in a chronological, unitary manner, and even if the

Moldavians had similar aspirations, they always bore in mind the individuality of their region40.

All in all, even having words like neam (Rom. for nation), with a Hungarian ethymology (cf.

DEX 98, from the Hungarian nem), any previous argument would be useless when trying to

39
Lucian BOIA, Istorie i mit n contiina romneasc, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2006, pp. 214-250.
40
KOGLNICEANU Via Lucian BOIA, Istorie i mit n contiina romneasc, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2006, p. 217.

18
establish the best schooling system, because the political context defines the needs of every region.

As a personal belief, we would have chosen a heterogeneous system of education, even having a

previous functional system.

Conclusions

As we have shown above, the Great Romanian Union did not only constitute a matter of being

recognized by international treaties, but also a set of very important reconfigurations with roots all

the way back to the 19th century. The historical regions, having the same language and, basically, the

same cultural origins, did not also have the same institutional pattern to reflect these resemblances.

As pragmatic as it may sound, this institutional interface incongruence between Wallachia, Moldavia

and Transylvania caused a serious set of issues on a political level, problems that triggered a lot of

political friction in the 3rd decade of the 20th century.

19
The great debate concerning nation building referred to the level of implication of the state as an

educator. Many theories support a high level of implication by the state, even the most skeptical

ones. In the case of Greater Romania, the educational reform constituted the putting into practice of

these theories. One important feature of applying this into Romania was the competition between the

regions when it came to imposing an educational institutional pattern. Wallachia, through the

National Liberal Party, imposed its model and this, apart from finally setting a centralized national

system, also led to numerous shortcomings.

The legitimacy of the Wallachian schooling model can be contested using a wide range of political,

national and cultural arguments, this being a cause of the Transylvanian resistance. We put emphasis

on our study case in order to highlight this aspect. Even though the homogenous model might not

have been the best solution, it led to a weakening of local patriotism and, hence, resulted in the

cornerstone of nation building.

Bibliography

BAUER, Markus, Rscoala: the last Peasants revolt, History Today, vol 60, issue 9.

BOIA, Lucian, Istorie i mit n contiina romneasc, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2006.

GIURESCU, Constantin C., Transylvania in the History of the Romanian People, IN Dinu C.

GIURESCU and Stephen FISCHER-GALAI (eds.), Romania: a Historic Perspective, East

European Monographs, Boulder, 1998.

HITCHINS, Keith, Rumania 1866-1947, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994.

20
LIVEZEANU, Irina, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and

London, 1995.

21