Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

BARNA ÁBRAHÁMRomanian town was derived from sheep-raising in the past, when in thewinter flocks were driven to Romania and Bessarabia, as well as to Bulgarianand Turkish territories. These experienced, enterprising peopleearned their living in commerce. Meanwhile, the village obtained municipalstatus and became urbanized, with several professional associations. 8The modernization of Romanian peasantry occurred in other villagesof this region, such as Rãºinari (Resinár), Orlat (Orlát), Gura Rîului(Guraró), or Rehãu (Rehó). The developing economy created a stratifiedsociety, “which did not bow its thick neck in front of every coat-wearingmen.” Folk customs have only partially survived: “Three-day long weddingsand funeral feasts are disappearing, in exchange the mourners grant smalleror larger sums of money. Public utilities were established thanks to thesedonations.” 9 I quoted these sentences from the monography of Rãºinari,which stressed the solidarity and altruism of the inhabitants, emphasizingtheir cultural ambitions as well. 10As for the whole of Transylvania, one can point to the spread of middleand larger estates owned by Romanian peasants. 11 It was this risingstratum that was considered by contemporaries as the cradle of a wouldbeTransylvanian Romanian bourgeoisie. As early as 1879, George Bariþiupointed out that one can hardly find Romanians with industrial and commercialproperty, and the creation of the modern Romanian bourgeoisiewas conditioned by the appearance of intelligent and well-to-do elementsof the peasantry. 12In the following decades, the young Romanian bourgeoisie preservedtheir close ties to the agrarian sphere because of family roots andnot least because of the estates purchased by its members. 13 The generalagricultural conscription of 1895 registered 1,068 Romanian land-owners(in the whole Hungarian Kingdom) with over 100 acres (as for Transylvaniaproper: 693 persons between 100 and 1,000 acres and 26 large landowners).In 1910, there were 1,249 such persons (or 1,435 persons, tenantsincluded). During the same period, the number of farmers with 50-100acres increased from 2,975 to 5,500, rising to 6,204 by the end of WorldWar I. 14The formation, economic activity, and national role of the Romanianbourgeoisie were passionately debated. Ernõ Éber, representative of thewell-informed but prejudiced Hungarian public opinion of the time,accused the Romanian banks of acting at the expense of Romanian andHungarian smallholders in order to create a stratum of middle landowners.15 The claim that the activity of the Romanian banks was ambigousappeared in the writings of Romanian contemporaries, too. 16 The banks –through their organ, Revista Economicã, monthly of the “Romanian BankAlliance” – considered it necessary to refute these accusations, pointing at210