The Eighth Tribe, 1977 (4. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1977-11-01 / 11. szám
Page 8 THE EIGHTH TRIBE November, 1977 Frankish and Bulgarian power had moved into the Carpathian Basin in the early ninth century, following their destruction of the Avar Empire. But their control over the area was always a tenous and limited one, if for no other reason, than because both of these empires were occupied with problems much closer at home. Thus, the Bulgarian Empire was locked in a power struggle with its Byzantine neighbor, and it had little time and effort to spare for its outlying provinces in the Carpathian Basin. This also holds true for the East Frankish (or future Holy Roman) Empire, which was beset by a spreading feudal anarchy under its last Carolingian rulers. In fact it was this very feudal anarchy that prevented the materialization of a united European effort against the conquering Magyars, and simultaneously permitted them to become a threat to Western Europe for over a half a century after their conquest of future Hungary. The conquest itself probably began in 895 (instead of the traditional date of 896), and took several years to complete. In the course of the next five years the Magyars fought numerous battles and skirmishes against the indigenous population, but none of these appears to have posed a major challange to their military power. Although we know virtually nothing about the details of the conquest, one of these encounters had been preserved for us in “The Legend of the White Stallion.” Others were simply made up by twelfth and thirteenth-century chroniclers who wanted to magnify the achievements of their conquering ancestors. For this reason they projected the realities of their own age back into the ninth century, and populated the Carpathian Basin with non-existent “dukes” of non-existent people. One of the best known and most misused examples of this anachronism is the case of the unknown scribe of King Béla III, commonly known as “Anonymus.” His well-known Gesta Hungarorum (Hungarian History) — written around 1200 A.D., about three centuries after the conquest — is filled with distorted details and fictional characters. One of these is a certain Gelou (Gyalu), allegedly the ruler of the Blaks or Ylach (who are generally identified as the later Roumanians), who was defeated by the conquering magyars. But the truth is that this Gelou (Gyalu) never existed. His very name is a Magyar term of Turkish origin, and it stems from the princely office of gyula, who — as we have seen — was the second in command, immediately after the ruling prince, kiindii. Anonymus’s use of this term for this fictional “Blak ruler” stems from the simple fact that after the conquest Eastern Hungary (including Transylvania) fell under the control of the gyulas. One must also remem-64 otherwise known as “Dracula” — Roumania combines Stalinism with national chauvinism, which is particularly heavy on the Hungarian minority. True, during the past two decade or so, some of Ceausescu’s dealings and oppressive policies have been unmasked by a few conscientious Western journalists. Yet, many American political leaders — including President Carter — apparently are still unconvinced, or at least they play little attention to the real human sufferings of the two and a half million Hungarians in Ceausecu’s Roumania. It is precisely this suffering, and the desire to change the passive attitude of the American policymakers that brought the Transylvanian World Federation (TWF) into being. The founding of the TWF increased to five the number of the major organizations which are dedicated to the alleviation of the oppressive conditions of the Hungarian minority in Roumania. In addition to the TWF, these include the American Hungarian Federation, the Committee of Transylvania, the American Transylvanian Federation, and the Committee for Human Rights in Rumania. The efforts of the TWF, like those of her sister organizations, are manifold. These include the publication of scholarly works that deal with Transylvania’s past and present, and also make propositions about the possible solution to this acute question. The work under review is also one of these publications of the TWF. Compiled by the Danubian Research Center under the editorship of Albert Wass de Czege, Documented Facts and Figures on Transylvania is basically an information handbook. It contains separate chapters on the geography, history, culture and population of Transylvania, followed by an additional chapter on the grievances and demands of the Hungarian minority, and then by a brief conclusion. The information presented in these chapters is generally well-selected and useful, and — in light of the chronological or topical subdivision of the individual chapters — also easily accessible. Yet, in a sense, the most interesting part of this work is the Appendix, which contains a number of revealing and shocking personal testimonies about incidents of mistreatment and brutalization of the Hungarian minority. One must read them to believe them; and even then it’s difficult to imagine that such events can take place in late twentieth-century Europe. But as one who is interested in human rights, and who has visited Roumania several times in the course of the past decade, I can also substantiate the basic accuracy of these testimonies. Moreover, there are many who could add to this list of incidents of official and unofficial discrimination and even outright brutality against the Hungarians in Roumana, who are being decimated systematically through a government-initiated and government-controlled policy of cultural genocide.
