Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu.

© Created in January 2001, Last revised: January 3, 2004

To the Students of the Magyar universities.

When a people wish to dominate and to enchain another, which is different to itself by race and by language, it reinstates the pretensions of barbarism, of feodality and of slavery.

luigi palma.[1]

Fellow Students,

You have thought fit to deny the accusation only too well founded which our brethren of Roumania have brought against the Magyars.

In other words you have sought to weaken the arguments of our brethren, who, when the terrorism of magyarism threw us one after the other into your prisons, have fulfilled the duty, which was very natural as we are brothers by nationality, of drawing the attention of the civilised world to the violence which has been done to us.

We, therefore, roumanian students of Hungary and of Transylvania, we who daily resent the pretended privileges of your constitution, we demand the right to prove to an impartial world, and to yourselves at the same moment, that those who issued the manifesto published at Bucharest are only in the right.

The fact that we see ourselves forced to approve this manifesto, and to protest against your answer is a sad phenomenon for a state, but it explains itself in a natural manner by the position of the Hilotes, which has been imposed upon us in the country of our ancestors.

Further we and all the Roumanians of Transylvania and of Hungary, are grateful to our brothers of Roumania for the generous aid which they have given us in the painful struggle which we are carrying on for our national independence.

And this aid need not make you angry, Fellow-Students for the celebrated Niebuhr has said « The Community of National Right is above all forms of state, which unite or separate the different portions of the same race.[2]

Let us examine what are the denials which-you have given to our manifesto. In your work you have sacrificed nearly one half in order to combat the possibility of the political union of the Roumanians.

In the whole of the Bucharest manifesto there is not a single word touching on this question.

In one word, our brothers have never demanded the annexation of the national territory of the Roumanians in Transylvania and Hungary to the existing kingdom of Roumania.

What object therefore have you in seeking to argue against something of which not one word has been said?

It is evidend that you wished to beg the question.

Not being in a position to deny, with the necessary proofs, the Bucharest manifesto you have taken bodily hold of simple fictions.

On page 27 of your work, you bring forward the following proofs which testify at the same time to your historical knowledge and to your sentiments of justice.

« The Magyar has defended his own state »

« The Magyar has defended the Slavs, the Germans and the Roumanians[3] who were living under the same government as himself ».

The foreign conquerors have only persecuted the Magyars.

But can there be, Fellow-Students, a more serious insult to the other five nations which constitute our state than the words of such statements?

Did you, an insignificant people defend us five whole nations?

Did you, five millions of Magyars defend us ten millions who were not Magyars?

And this state inhabited, sustained, defended by five nations and by the Magyars, is it to belong to the last named only?

And when you make these claims in a manner worthy of the middle ages, do you still pride yourselves on your pretended love of justice and of truth?

We repet these insults with indignation.

We do not permit any one in the whole world and least of all you to speak to us in such an arrogant manner insulting the people of which we form a part. And we could also afford to treat such insults with the contempt they deserve.

But since people abroad have often been led into error by such nonsense, we shall also say something on the subject, but without trenching on the historical side of the question as you have done.

Hungary has never been anything else than she is today, a country composed of divers nationalities.

The first king of Hungary, St-Stephen himself was proud of the fact that his country contained several nationalities.

The Hungarian army was wholly the natural outcome of all the the peoples of the country.

And it could not be otherwise.

If in ancient times one scarcely recalled the nationality of peoples and of armies it was because in those times, the conception of nationality was but little understood.

And yet we have numberless startling proofs of the part which the Roumanians played in the defence of their hearths and homes.

The Roumanians and especially those of the south of Transylvania, those of Baccat and those of Maramurech have been of the most remote times, as they are today, a people militarily organised who had to guard the frontiers of the country which they inhabited; and it was only by reason of that same military service that they enjoyed a provincial autonomy.[4]

The famous war against the Turks had for its theatre, almost exclusively, the territories of the non-magyar nations (for example those of Câmpul-Merlelor, Timisoara, Câmpul-Pânei, Baia-Mare &^a.

Whoever takes a glance over the historical events of the early middle ages, and looks at the ethnological map of Hungary will be convinced immediately that the nations above named have always acted as the true bulwark of defence, but that the Magyars have always had the glory of it.

The special burden of the wars against the crescent have been in great part supported by the Roumanians of the kingdom of Roumania, led by their princes Mircea l'Ancien, Stephen the Great, Michel the Brave, etc., and by the Roumanians of Transylvania and of Hungary.

It was the Roumanians who erected the innumerable forts of Banat in the south and of Transylvania, for on them always devolved the defence of the ford of the lower Danube and the soulhern passes ot the Carpathians.

Those territories were then as they are today, Roumanian, and it was the arm of the Roumanian which always was ready to defend them when menaced by invasion.

The Magyar baron, Joseph Kemény, who was far from being a friend to our race himself wrote as follows about the Roumanians: « Tolerance, humane and generous attribute of peace, which corresponds with our modern ideas, demands that we afford fitting concessions to that people which was once brutal, made so by centuries of hardship,but which is now emerging into the full right of civilisation and which has given to us some of the best sons of the country, some of our heroes and of our statesmen.[5]

And it is not due to any historical accident that the bravest and most powerful champion of Hungary and of Christianity against the crescent, Jean Huniade Corvin, otherwise known as Jancu Sibiianul (John de Sibiu) was a Roumanian.[6]

And his son, king Matthew Corvin,[7] also a Roumanian became the most just and most renowned of the kings ofthat period.

And do we not all know that as a matter of fact the entire legion of Magyar heroes were only Slavs.

Do we not know that the indefatigable Zrinyi was of Croatian nationality?

And Zápolya was he not a Slav?

And Matthew Ciac de Trencin, and Tit Dugonic and Dragfi, and Chinisie? The last two were Roumanians.

This is how the glory and the pride which Hungary draws from her heroes is brought low.

Such heroes could only be produced from the bosom of a heroic people, for according to the Roumanian proverb « water can never be turned into blood ».

And even in the 18^th century Raicevici[8] wrote: « In the last war of Austria against Bavaria the Roumanians of Transylvania gave proofs of the most devoted courage.

What do we learn from such authentic facts?

They teach us that Magyarism, as it has done in the past, takes to itself today the merits of the nations which are non-Magyar, and that it has always claimed for its own heroism the success and glory of others.

In 1741 the empress Maria Theresa came to the diet of Presburgh and holding in her arms the prince Joseph, the tears in her eyes, she begged the magnates of Hungary to help her against Frederick of Prussia and the other enemies which were desolating her empire.

Then the magnates of Hungary drawing forth their swords, gave the celebrated promise « Moriamur pro rege nostro Maria Theresia! » We will die for our sovereign Maria-Theresa.

That was very fine doubtless! But what did they do, those Magnates? They returned home and formed regiments composed of Roumanians!

The Austro-Hugarian regiments Nos 31, 33 and 37 which were led out to shed their blood for their sovereign were Roumanians,[9] that which every one knows now, for only a few days ago the above named regiments celebrated their jubilee with great pomp and ceremony.

If one rightly understand these things, it can easily be seen how cheaply the Magyars obtained their renown!

Fellow Students! The Magyars boast of having fought in 1848 to separate Hungary from Austria, and yet they charge it against us a crime for having struggled against them.

Let us understand one another.

The object of your struggles then was nothing else than the triumph of the principle of nationality, and the constitution was nothing more or less than a pretext put prominently forward by you.

You knew perfectly well that this constitution, in the form of a state, was the surest means to gain for you, but for you alone, national independence.

You wished to be the sole masters of your destiny.

Well! In that respect not only we ourselves but all other right minded persons, will applaud your resolution.

But you are not contented with that which accrued to you as a matter of right and justice; then as to day, you wished to be also masters of our destiny.

It is to this unjust pretension that we have been, and are, and always will be opposed.

It is a well known fact that we, the Roumanians, were not the only ones to combat the establishment of your constitution; all were against it the Servians, Ruthenians, Slavs, Germans and Croatians.

How can this be explained?

By the fact that for all these peoples your constitution was nothing else than the imposition of a pure absolutism.

The celebrated historian Springer writes: « The Magyars wished to remain Magyars, but they demanded that the Roumanians and the Slavs should renounce their national independence.

The basis of the Magyar policy was an unnatural mixture ot liberalism and of pretensions to power, and every one can perceive that such a combination can only end in a work of violence.[10]

You say that we have preferred the absolutism of Austria to your constitution.

That is true!

But does not the liberalism of your constitution seem suspicious even to yourselves, from the moment that Austrian absolutism is preferred to it by us and bv the other nations!

It is a fact that this absolutism, in spite of its severity was without comparison far more endurable and far more honest than your pseudo-constitution.

However painful, however insupportable may have been to us this absolutism we were able under that system to open our Roumanian High Schools, to institute the Transylvanian Association and a number of other establishments for national education; and since the establishments of consitutional liberalism, we see ourselves denied this right, which the law accords us, of founding secondary schools, we see that the high schools we do possess are magyarised, that our clubs are put down and that we are forbidden to found new ones.

During the non-constitutional period we had our deputies at Vienna; under your liberal constitution, not a single Roumanian deputy exists, nay, not one who can defend our interests in your parliament.

Under the absolutism one never spoke about the kulturegylets[11] of germani-sation of taxes imposed on the communes for germanisation, of kisdedovs,[12] and of other means of denationalising worthy indeed of the Janissaries.

Under the absolutism not a single Roumanian journalist was imprisoned; but under your constitution, a dozen of Roumanian reporters, for having had the courage to defend their nations rights, have been dragged before the tribunals, and nearly all have indeed tasted of the benefits of your liberalism — in the prisons of Vat, of Cluj of Sibiu and of Seghedin.

It is a bitter period for us your period of constitutionalism, and it exceeds in its oppression and its persecutions, the most reactionary moments of Austrian absolutism.

Even from your point of view, would it not have been more prudent on your part not to have spoken of the liberty of your constitution which is nothing else than a sad parody of liberty and of law.

In your reply you try to prove that under the influence of your own education ours has commenced.

And you will maintain this assertion in citing the fact that the calvinist princes of Transylvania have printed religious books even in Roumanian.

We are not ignorant of this fact, but we are also aware of the fact that their object was not to civilise us, but simply to convert us to Calvinism.

That is as clear as the day.

It is the union of our church with that of Rome which has given an impetus to our system of national education and caused it to make any progress.

But this union had no initiative with the Magyars but with the court at Vienna, and against the hordes of Magyar calvinists of Transylvania.

The young Roumanians who by reason of this union have been sent to Rome, to Vienna, etc., have brought back from these places the influence of western civilisation.

This Magyar culture, so much vaunted was then only dawning and could not give to others what it did not possess itself.

Further on you pretend that the Roumanians have never demanded their national rights.

The truth is that from the first half of the 18^th century the Roumanians claimed the right of national independence.

Our bishop, Innocent Clain, who all his life, struggled at the head of the clergy and of the people for national and religions emancipation, described our sufferings in the following words: « and we suffer many other evils, Most Sacred Majesty, which crush the clergy and the Roumanian nation, which is really lowered to submit to a state of slavery like that of the Egyptian bondage.[13]

And what did the Roumanians then demand?.

That which we ourselves do, to day after a lapse of 150 years, we demand it aloud and in tones that can be understood, that is that the Roumanians shall be regarded as possessing equal rights with the other nations.[14]

If in short you affirm, that which puts you in contradiction with yourselves, that we have made our claims only since Roumania was made a kingdom, you give evidence of a want of good faith.

In 1743 and in 1848 Roumania was not that which she is today. In spite of that the Roumanians of Transylvania and of Hungary claimed absolutely as they do to day, with the force of a people which has the consciousness of its own right, its inalienable right to form a political and national homogeniety. To cover the attempts which you have made and which you never cease to make with all your force against the existence of the non Magyar nations, to explain and justify your Utopian projects of Magyarisation, you go so far as to speak of Italian and German unity.

That is to say that the ultimate germanisation of the Italians of Austria, or the russification of the Germans of the Baltic provinces, can be compared, according to your theories to the unity of the same nation, identical with itself, Italian or German.

To such theories we will not reply; they are eloquent enough in themselves.

In your reply you have equally tried from time to time to cast an insult on the Roumanians of Roumania, seeking to hold up to derision their country and their history, and to produce the impression that there could scarcely have been in olden times men of merit and of bravery, as it is related in our schools, unless they were Magyars.

We do not discuss the situation; the Roumanians of the kingdom have no need of our advocacy — but in order that one may see what is the real value of your assertions, we shall simply quote the opinions of some old writers, on the subject of what really passed among our fellow countrymen.

Sebastian Munster wrote in 1550 of the Roumanians of the ancient Moldavia that they are a very hardy race, full of energy and put to severe proof in Transylvania, that they are warrior, very brave, and always ready for the fight.[15]

About the same time, Gratianai wrote, in reference to the Roumanian armies: « They fight with so much audacity, with so much scorn of death, with such confidence in themselves, that often with a handful of men, they have put to flight whole armies of their neighbours.[16]

The celebrated polish historian, Orzechowski, wrote of the Roumanians:

« They are terrible fellows, very brave, and there is no other people in existence which, animated by a love of glory and of heroism, defends a small country against a host of enemies either constantly attacking or repulsing them »[17].

We might continue the series; but we will content ourselves with quoting the opinion of M. Rudolf Bergner[18] who by his own intuition and study, carried on with much perseverance, has attained to an excellent knowledge of the affairs of this country; this is what he says: « The Roumanians have an equal right with the Hungarians to the gratitude of the West; during the despairing and continued struggles of Western Europe, the Roumanians served as a wall of defence (and in truth one much to be pitied) against the Ottomans, and they only yielded the day that thanks to the genius and fortune of Prince Eugene the West was enabled to breathe more freely ».

In every page of your reply, you incessantly try to give one the impression that you are already a nation quite Europeanized as well as an ardent lover of liberty. And it is you who dare to speak thus?

But was it not you, Magyars, students of the university of Cluj, who insulted us in the most vulgar manner, just as we were peaceably celebrating the 15 May 1884.[19] Was it not you who burned the Roumanian papers on the Trencin place at Cluj?

Was it not you who degraded yourselves even to becoming informers and demanding the closing of our literary society Julia?

Was it not you who then composed and sang those lines, which will always remain an infamy on your part, the refrain of which was Büdôs bocskor,[20] and in which you scoffed at a whole nation?!

Was it not you who in 1801 attacked the assembly of the Roumanians of Cluj, throwing stones, breakings heads, and all because they had dared (!) to assemble in order to discuss the project of the law of denationalization, by means of infant asylums, and to protest against this project?

And it was you, who insulted us so brutally, you who had the presumption to speak of civilization and liberty?

Is it possible to find anything more blasphemous?

And again, you accuse our brothers of having tried in their Manifesto to lower the good reputalion ol the Magyars.

Have they such a good reputation?

Let us judge of the case.

M. Schuler-Libloy, a late professor of common law in Hungary, and a man who has thoroughly studied public life there, expresses himself as follows: « Here, the weak go to the wall ».[21]

M. H. Biedermann, professor at the university of Graz knows you very well, and this is what he says of your so much boasted constitutionalism: « It is good for the Magyars to be continually reminded of the heavy responsability they have assumed, by the abuse they have for centuries made of their power ».[22]

The Englishman Charles Bonner, who has studied on the spot the state of Transylvania, and who shows much sympathy towards the Magyars, says, amongst other things: « All that the Magyar affirms or complains of must be considered as unreliable, for he always omits any circumstance that may tell against him. »

« The Magyar has a great liking for what he considers the historical point of view ».

« To this point, every thing must yield, civilization, education, circumstances and intercourse ».

« Oh the other hand, however, he easily sacrifices this famous historical point of view, if it does not favour his desires ».[23]

The Frenchman Edouard Thouvenel, when speaking of a national solemnity of the Magyars, characterizes you thus: « The people ran through the streets shouting: Hungary and Liberty! and as a proof of their respect for the liberty of others, they broke the windows of those citizens whose patriotism had not extended to the illumination of their houses...

To see them lying on the straw, amongst their small horses and light carts, one might fancy one had come upon a troop of savages. Ten centuries have passed over this nation without modifying its character: The Magyar of to-day is the worthy son of the barbarian of olden times... »[24]

Be good enough then, estimable Fellow Students, to be more moderate in your self appreciation, and sing your praises in a lower key.

For you see, how weak the -titles are which give you the right to speak of us, non-magyar nations of Hungary, with that revolting presumption which you make a show of in your pamphlet.

Besides which your Reply had hardly appeared, than it was judged in the following terms by a paper essentially Magyar:

« There are some facts which cannot be denied. Thus there exists in Hungary a law concerning the nationalities, the tenor of which is not respected ».

« It is in this way that the system of the elections, quite artificial, is so arranged that the districts inhabited by the Roumanians send less deputies than those inhabited by the Magyars ».

« The small Magyar towns elect a deputy with 2 to 3oo votes, whereas on the other side, there is hardly one deputy for 5,ooo Roumanian electors ». « This is an injustice! »

« And, moreover it is a fact that in the districts inhabited by the nationalities, we find a body of officials, who in the name of the Hungarian state, administer and render justice in a manner worthy of the Turkish pachas ».

« And we might enumerate hundreds of similar cases which all prove that... the governors themselves do not respect the law of the nationalities, so that even. after the appearance of the Reply of the Magyars, one sad truth remains incontestable, which is, that in reality the nationalities are oppressed ».[25]

« Now, Fellow Students, have you still the courage to falsify the truth, by exclaiming emphatically: « As far as political liberty is concerned, it is impossible to find a reproach more unjust than that with which the Wallachians accuse the Magyars ».[26]

Or do you think that by denying the truth in such. a manner, you can conceal the wrongs that you do us?

Ah! estimable colleagues, have you forgotten the history of your country, have you forgotten that you too have been loaded with chains to prevent you from cultivating your national spirit?

Have you forgotten the experiences of the germanization of Joseph II?

Have you forgotten for what reasons you revolted in 1848?

Have you forgotten the germanizing absolutism of Bach and of Schmerling?

Yes, you have forgotten every thing, because you no longer feel the stranger's yoke, you no longer see the treasure of your nationality, your language and your individual nationality threatened, you know that you are no longer considered as raw material good only for the cementing of a foreign nation!

Yes, you have but lately emerged from the darkness of the Austrian yoke, and now dazzled by the sun of your national liberty, you can perceive nothing else!

Do you not feel, oh my loyal colleagues, that to look for unworthy pretexts, wherewith to annihilate a people thirsting with a desire to enjoy free national development, is a crime which calls down upon it, the vengeance of Heaven?

It is the height of wickedness, to try to mislead, as you do, the judgment of sympathizing people, when you speak of your former virtues, as tendencies to be condemned only because these virtues are ours to-day, whereas you no longer need them.

Besides, does there not exist among you at the present time, whole legions of our compatriots, who, for long years have conspired against the existing form of government and even against the monarchy?

Is it not you who, insult the flag of the general army, because it is not the Magyar colours?

Is it not you who, in the midst of this general army, ask incessantly for the introduction of your language?

Is it not you who, at the meeting of the delegations ask for the cultivation of Magyar national feeling in the army?

And it is you, the most fanatical representatives of the principles of nationality, who dare to oppose us, because we also claim equal rights for our nation!

But do you not see that this fanaticism in the Magyarization, has aroused an implacable hatred against you, not only in the diverse nations of the country, but in the hearts of our neighbours, their brothers by blood.

In Hungary, you have made for yourselves enemies of the Roumanians, the Serbians, the Ruthenes, the Saxons and the Slavs.

On the other hand, what friends have you in Roumania, in Serbia, in Bohemia, in Croatia?

None!

Every one avoids you, every one looks upon you as an enemy.

We could bring forward a mass of proofs to corroborate these assertions, but for want of space, it will suffice to remind you of the following lesson recently given you by one of the oldest and most serious of the German papers, when it said: « Would the Magyars have one sincere friend in their own country or beyond if the Germans themselves abandoned them? »

And do these fanatics believe that the Magyar nation isolated as it is, can without friends or relations exist in the midst of the other nations of which it has made for itself enemies.[27]

And if ever the colossus of the North should fall upon us, what will be the effect of this fierce hatred which separates you from the nations in question?

From the height of your grandeur, do you not see that you, and you alone will be the cause of the ruin of the whole monarchy and of all the people who live in or around it?

Do not all these facts prove that in the south-east of Europe the Magyar element is but an element of trouble and disorder?

For it is clear, that an element which, a prey to such egotism, does not hesitate to make an attempt against the national personality of other nations, is according to the reasoning of every healthy mind, by that fact alone, an element of disorder and destruction, because by ruining peace, which is the life and safety of these nations, it forces them to violent acts of despair.

« The national conscience, says Held, transforms itself into a destructive passion, which either kills those who are mastered by it, or engenders this moral madness which occasions the principle of a people's own preservation to degenerate into a particular national egotism.... »[28]