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

The Idea of Independent Romanian National Economy in Transylvaniathe middle class; in remote localities, this stratum “sinks into its milieu, whilein the larger and more wealthy villages it takes part in the general activity ofthe intelligentsia – in the process of getting rich.” One must add the 371 Romanianvillage notaries; besides them “the Romanian intelligentsia is reduced toa very narrow group,” in which the most numerous were the middle and smallholders(1,068 persons), though, at the same time, they were lawyers, doctorsor clerks, too. One should focus on the circa 400 bank functionaries, whileother occupations are more sporadically represented. “Thus, the Romanianmiddle class that acts in the name of, and against, three million people, consistsof two thousand persons.” See Farkas Pál, Az oláh kérdésrõl (On the oláh[i.e., Romanian] question) (Budapest: Singer és Wolfner, 1907), pp. 19-22.The author emphasized the egoistic mentality of this middle class: “The oláhlawyers, bank directors, popas, or schoolmasters are very reserved admirers ofsandalled peasants.” Farkas quotes Iuliu Maniu’s public statement that “whatwe need here at home are not smallholders, but a strong Romanian middlelandowner class.” See Farkas, Az oláh kérdésrõl, pp. 13-14. Moreover, Éber (inFajok harca, p.168) and Bodor (in his “Az erdélyrészi pénzintézetek,” p. 932),expressed the same opinion. Contrary to Farkas’s underestimated figures,Petru Suciu gave a five times higher number for the widely defined intelligentsia(public service, public health system, churches, education, etc.). Suciu,“Clasele sociale ale românilor,” p. 702, while Zoltán Szász estimated the middleclass at some fifty thousand people at the outbreak of World War I. Szász,“A román polgárság,” p. 306.27 “While we do not have educated and well-to-do peasants, we will not havea bourgeoisie either.” See Dobrescu, Elita româneascã în lumea satului transilvan,1867-1918, p. 22.28 “Lawyers and bank functionaries were the first conscious conquerors in the citiesof Transylvania. We had some churches and even some confessional schools, butthey could do little for saving the national creed. Only the Romanian liberal professionsintroduced a new period in the life of the Transylvanian towns: the age ofopen struggle for the penetration of Romanian element.” Suciu, “Clasele socialeale românilor,” p. 701.29 Professionals, living in the same town, “would form an alliance for comingtogether every two weeks, or even more frequently, to discuss and study theactual economic, financial and social issues that we should have an interest in.… It was hard at the beginning, of course, maybe we would not have any topicto discuss, we would laugh at each other as it is our custom, but with time westarted to understand this thing. ...These circles produced some studies, someideas to keep others informed about the spirit of real life, so the process, whichwe needed so much, started: a spiritual movement towards the practical life.”Ioan I. Lãpedatu, Probleme sociale ºi economice: Ajutã-te ºi Dumnedìu te vaajuta (Social and economic problems: Help yourself and God will help you)(Braºov, 1904), pp. 23-24.30 Lãpedatu, Probleme sociale ºi economice, pp. 25-27, 39-40 and 28-29.31 S., “Reuniuni agricole,” (Agricultural reunions), Revista Economicã 1 (10 September,1899), pp. 361-363.32 Lãpedatu, Probleme sociale ºi economice, pp. 15-17 and 20-22.221