![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Maramureș (Máramaros) and Banat (Bánság) regions of dualist Hungary were classic borderlands with markedly different characteristics. While both zones were multiethnic, the former was a mountainous, backward and agricultural area. The latter was one of the richest and most industrialized in the country, with thriving cities and a developed economy. While social life in Maramureș was dominated by interethnic and trans-religious noble kins, who ruled over Ruthenian- and Romanian-speaking peasants and Orthodox Jews, the Banat had a diverse yet stratified society defined by a landowning aristocracy, urban bourgeoisie, families of military descent, immigrant worker groups and a multiethnic peasantry. These regions had very different roles and positions within Austria-Hungary and were ruled in a differentiated way. The new boundaries that were drawn after the First World War resituated these areas: new centres emerged; new elites came to dominate in the successor states; and the new state borders cut previously existing economic and social ties. Both Maramureș and the (Romanian) Banat were relocated in terms of space, economy and society. The once economically central and self-supporting Banat became dependent on a central government that aimed at its political subordination, which generated strong regionalist political currents. Maramureș became the most peripheral area of the new state, and the local elites had to rely on resources provided by the centre. Divided among themselves, Maramureș regionalists, Transylvanian regionalists and centralizers competed for favour in Bucharest, creating unexpected alignments within the framework of a layered type of regionalism, and offering diverging visions of the regions’ futures.
Note on geographic names
For the sake of simplicity, at the first occasion I give all relevant varieties of the names of administrative units and localities, and subsequently use the Romanian form.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Cody J. Inglis, Chris Wendt, Jernej Kosi, Ivan Jeličić and Anikó Izsák for their constructive comments on prior versions of this text.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. See Hirschhausen, “A New Imperial History?”; Judson, The Habsburg Empire; Egry, “Negotiating Post-Imperial.”
2. It was differentiated rule, based on the co-optation of various local and regional elites. See Hirschhausen, “A New Imperial History?,” 741–2; Burbank and Cooper, Empires in World History, 8–10.
3. Livezeanu, Cultural Politics; Kührer-Wielach, Siebenbürgen ohne Siebenbürger?; Hirschhausen et al., Phantomgrenzen; Cusco, A Contested Borderland; Suveica, Basarabia în primul deceniu interbelic.
4. Brubaker, “National Minorities, Nationalizing States.”
5. Hirschhausen, “A New Imperial History?”; Hirschhausen and Leonhard, Empires und Nationalstaaten; Rolf, “Einführung, Imperiale Biographien.”
6. See A magyar szent korona országainak 1910 évi népszámlálása. vol. 3, 206–7, 218–19, 232–3, 242–3.
7. Demeter and Szulovszky, Területi egyenlőtlenségek, 15–84.
8. See 1910 évi népszámlálás vol. 3, 206–7, 218–19, 232 –3, 242–3.
9. 1910 évi népszámlálás vol. 3, 206–7, 218–19, 232 –3, 242–3.
10. 1910 évi népszámlálás vol. 3, 250–2, 258–9.
11. 1910 évi népszámlálás vol. 3, 1049.
12. 1910 évi népszámlálás vol. 3, 1048.
13. Gál, “A helyi bankok aranykora”; Gál, The Golden Age of Local Banking.
14. Balaton, “The Role of the Hungarian Government”; Demeter and Szulovszky, Területi egyenlőtlenségek, 85–116; Oroszi, “A magyar kormány.”
15. A magyar korona országainak mezőgazdasági statisztikája, vol. 3. Bereg is detailed on p. 47, Ung on p. 52, Máramaros on p. 59, Krassó-Szörény on p. 68, Temes on p. 69 and Torontál on p. 72.
16. For data on husbandry, see ibid. On the problems of traditional agricultural methods, see Oroszi, “A magyar kormány.”
17. Roșu, “Exploatarea”; Marin, The Formation and Allegiance; Marin, Contested Frontiers.
18. A magyar korona országainak mezőgazdasági statisztikája, vol. 3, 69, 72.
19. Cieger, “Érdekek és stratégiák.”
20. Bélay, Máramaros megye, 107.
21. Deák, “Vizsgálat egy megyei”; Filipascu, Istoria Maramureșului, 181–8.
22. Cieger, “Érdekek és stratégiák.”
23. Balogh, A máramaroszigeti református lyceum, 102–4.
24. Marin, The Formation; Marin, Contested Frontiers.
25. Jakabffy, “Krassó-Szörény vármegye,” 382–93.
26. Borsi-Kálmán, Öt nemzedék.
27. Jakabffy, “Krassó-Szörény vármegye,” 382–93; Iudean, “Între sentiment național.”
28. Iudean, “From Budapest to Bucharest.”
29. Deák, “Vizsgálat egy megyei,” 174; Filipascu, Istoria Maramureșului, 181–8; Cieger, “Érdekek és stratégiák.”
30. Filipescu, Istoria Maramureșului, 181–8.
31. Dr. Gergely, A hódmezővásárhelyen működőI, 9. The initiator of the united party, László Nyegre (Vasile Neagru) later became lord lieutenant.
32. I took the data from the series Országgyűlési Almanach. See also Iudean, “From Budapest to Bucharest.”
33. Jakabffy, “Krassó-Szörény vármegye,” 388–9.
34. Iudean, “The Romanian Parliamentary Elite,” 50–3.
35. Iudean, “The Romanian Parliamentary Elite,” 54.
36. Balázs, “A középszintű közigazgatási apparátus,” 121.
37. See Pálffy, “The Dislocated Transylvanian.”
38. Jakabffy, “Krassó-Szörény vármegye,” 388–9.
39. For example for the Calvinist lyceum and law school. A máramarosszigeti ref. lyceum, jogakadémia, főgimnázium.
40. Balaton, “The Role of the Hungarian.”
41. Gyurgyák, A zsidókérdés, 353–6.
42. See Leuștean, România, Ungaria și Tratatul de la Trianon, 51–9, 187–9; Moscovici, La France et la Banat.
43. Novacescu, “Chestiunea Banatului.”
44. Roth, Politische Strukturen.
45. On Romanian politics, see Ciuperca, Opoziţia şi putere; Maner, Parlamentarismus im Rumänien.
46. Fedinec and Vehes, Kárpátalja, 1919–2009, 48–90; Paul, “Clash of Claims.”
47. Demeter and Szulovszky, Területi egyenlőtlenségek, 219–54.
48. Rigó, “The Long First World War.”
49. Bátory, “Dezvoltarea exploatărilor carbonifere”; Rados and Székely, Közgazdasági évkönyv; Nemoianu, Ardeal și Banatul, 15–16.
50. Rados and Székely, Közgadasági évkönyv, 342–3, 365–83.
51. Demeter and Szulovszky, Területi egyenlőtlenségek, 219–54.
52. Hausleitner, Die Rumänisierung.
53. Jánosi, “Hontalanul.”
54. Micu, “Viaţa politică.”
55. Roșu, “Exploatarea.”
56. See Scrisori din Maramureș, Vestul României, II. nr. 9. January 25, 19, 1924. p. 2.
57. Roșu, “Exploatarea”; Nemoianu, “Probleme bănățene,” 1159.
58. Egry, Egy önlegitimáló narratíva
59. In this scheme the ARA facilitated the collection of donations and money for food packages that were delivered to their addressees in Romania. The money was transferred to the Romanian National Bank in US dollars and disbursed in Romanian lei to the respective individuals or the food warehouses supplying the packages. The fixed exchange rate was lower than the actual market rate and the difference meant net profit – and accumulation of foreign currency reserves. See Archives of the Hoover Institution, American Relief Organization European Operations, box 374, folder 11: contract between the ARA and Romania from February 28, 1919; folder 19: Haskell to Peden May 12, 1919, and May 13, 1919, Haskell to Minister Ferichide May 2, 1919, and Haskell to Paris May 23, 1919, box 289; folder 2: Memorandum to Mr Hyslop, October 1, 1919; box 375, folder 7: Memorandum to Herbert Hoover, Paris, April 23, 1919; folder 8: Woodruffe to Sir William Goode, May 4, 1919.
60. See the case of the Renner tannery in Cluj. Rigó, “The Long First World War.”
61. Nemoianu, Ardealul și Banatul, 15–16.
62. Bátory, “Dezvoltarea exploatărilor carbonifere.” In reality some of these companies were never nationalized, only taken into Romanian ownership by the post-Second World War Commission for Administration of Enemy Property (CASBI) and subsequent nationalization.
63. Nemoianu, Ardealul și Banat, 15–19; Neumann, Die Interkulturlaität des Banats, 50–2.
64. Egry, “Unholy Alliances?”; Sora, “Étre fonctionnaire ‘minoritaire’.”
65. Arhivele Naționale Secția Județeană (ANSJ) Maramureș (MM) Liceul de Fete Domnița Ileana 2/1921. f. 100; Gazeta Maramureșană, November 2, 1923, p. 4; Gazeta Maramureșană, October 19, 1923, p.3; Gazeta Maramureșană, no. 18, 1924, p. 3; ANSJ MM dosar 2/1921, f. 32; Însemnari cu prilejul șerbărei “Revelionului” în Sighetul Marmației, Gazeta Maramureșană, January 18, 1924, p. 3. For the use of Hungarian within the postal service in the first years of Romanian rule, see also the bilingual address from the Regional Directorate of the Post Office in Oradea to the Administrative Committee of Maramureș county from October 25, 1921. ANSJ MM Prefectura Județului Maramureș, inventar 1005. 24/VII/39/1923. f. 2. Barbulescu C[onstan]tin: Atențiune. Gazeta Maramureșană, December 28, 1923, p. 2; Arhivele Naționale Istorice Centrale Direcția Generală a Poliției, Arhivele Naționale Istorice Centrale București (ANIC) Direcția Generală a Poliției (DGP) 3/1919-1920. f. 113.
66. Egry, “Navigating the Straits.”
67. The Gazeta Lugojului published the statistics of borrowed books in Timișoara from November 1922. Only 594 of the 2107 books borrowed were Romanian, 430 German and 896 Hungarian. See January 28, 1923, p. 3.
68. Gazeta Lugojului, January 28, 1923, p. 3; February 25, 1923, p. 3.
69. Egry, “Crowding Out,” 215.
70. Livezeanu, Cultural Politics; Kührer-Wielach, Siebenbürgen ohne Siebenbürger?; Hirschhausen et al., Phantomgrenzen.
71. Egry, “An Obscure Object of Desire.”
72. Octavian, “Biserica catolică și naționalismul. Un răspuns,” Gazeta Lugojului, January 21, 1923, pp. 1–2, Preotul Paica, Comunitate de averea. Reflecții. Ibid., p. 4.
73. Filipascu, Istoria Marmarueșului.
74. Kelen György, “A nevezetes Mihályi-család búcsút mondott a közszereplés színpadának,” Brassói Lapok, 16 June 1937, p. 4.
75. For the establishment and role of schoolboards, see Livezeanu, Cultural Politics, 37–8; ANSJ MM Prefectura Județului Maramureș Pachetul I/13, 1/1923, f. 50–1; T. Stoia: Reflexii la articol de sus: Gazeta Maramureșană. October 12, 1923, p. 2.
76. ANIC Ministerul Instructiunii 1922. Div. I. 128/1922, f. 54–5. Gazeta Maramureșană, December 7, 1923. IV/50, 2; December 14, 1923, IV/50, 1–2; December 21, 1923. IV/51, 1–2.
77. ANIC Ministerul Instructiunii, 24/1925. f. 1–2.; Din activitate Dlui revizor scolar al Maramuras T. Stoia I-III. Gazeta Maramureșană, January 19, 1923; February 2, 1923; February 9, 1923; V. Filipciuc, Prietenul Teodor Stoia and T. Stoia, Reflexii la articol de sus. Gazeta Maramureșană, October 12, 1923, p. 2.
78. ANIC Ministerul Instrucțiunii, 24/1925. f. 3–15.
79. See Kelen György, “A nevezetes”; Lazăr, Amintirii.
80. Egry, Etnictás, identitás, politika.
81. It was probably the reason why the returning Hungarian administration in 1940 installed a Romanian prefect, Flavius Iurca, who was a district chief before 1918, county prefect in 1931–32, and an alleged follower of the Mihalis. Ablonczy, A visszatért Erdély.
82. Fritz, “Az 1927. évi választások.”
83. Nicolescu and Radu, “The Parliamentary Elite,” 219; Neagu, “Considerații privind viața,” 566–8.
84. ANIC Consiliul Dirigent Direcția Administrației Generală 5/1919. f. 45–6, Arhivele Naționale Secția Județeană Timiș (ANSJ TM), Fond Prefectura Județului Severin 47/1920 f. 39–40.
85. Iudean, “From Budapest to Bucharest”; Răzvan-Mihai, “A Socio-Professional Analysis.”
86. Iudean, “From Budapest to Bucharest,” 380–3. After 1926 the electoral law awarded all the seats in a county to the list that achieved more than 50% of the votes in the respective constituency, and the party that gained more than 40% of the votes at the national level was entitled to half of the seats and a proportional part of the other half, skewing the results.
87. Nicolescu and Radu, “The Parliamentary Elite,” 220.
88. Iudean, “The Banat Political Elite.”
89. Nemoianu, Ardealul și Banatul, Dr. Nestor Porumb, Comerțul de azi. Gazeta Lugojului, 25 February, 1923, pp. 1–2.
90. “Adunarea Partidului Popular în Sânnicolau Mare,” Românul, 16 May 1920, p. 2.
91. Novacescu, “Chestiunea Banatului.”
92. Egry, Etnicitás, identitás, politika, 317, 405.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Gábor Egry
Gábor Egry is a historian, Doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences anddirector-general of the Institute of Political History, Budapest. His research interests are nationalism, everyday ethnicity, politics of identity, and politics of memory in modern East Central Europe. He is the author of five volumes, a former Fulbright Visiting Research Scholar at Stanford University, and the recipient of fellowships from, among others, Imre Kertész Kolleg Jena, New Europe College, Bucharest, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Since 2018 he has been the Principal Investigator of the ERC Consolidator project “Nepostrans – Negotiating Post-Imperial Transitions: from Remobilization to Nation-State Consolidation: a Comparative Study of Local and Regional Transitions in post-Habsburg East and Central Europe.”