István Udvari
Education in the diocese of
Munkács in the 18th
century
The Greek Catholic diocese of Munkács
was one of the largest in the Hungarian Kingdom the jurisdiction of which
included 13 counties at the end of the 18th century.[1] Up to 1777 with
the exception of five all Greek Catholic parishes in counties Szepes, Torna and
Gömör belonged to the jurisdiction of Esztergom. These parishes were administered
by the chapter of Szepes up to the time when independent bishoprics were
founded in Szepes and Rozsnyó.[2] Up to 1777 five
Hungarian parishes belonged to Przemysl. In the history of the diocese there
were 5 major dismemberments (apart from those concerning only 1-5 parishes)
when several parishes were separated from the diocese and joined to the sees of
Eperjes, Nagyvárad, Szamosújvár, Hajdúdorog and Máramaros.[3]
The administration of this huge
diocese was not an easy task due to the transport conditions of that time and
to solve this difficult situation several vicariates were organised. Bishop
György Bizáczy (1657-1717-1733) in 1722 established the vicariate in Máramaros
and Bishop András Bacsinszky (1732-1772-1809) organised the vicariates in Kassa
(1787) and in Szatmár (1787). Five years later the seat of the vicariate was
transferred from Kassa to Eperjes thus preparing the way to the foundation of
the future bishopric in this town.
The Greek Catholic bishops of
Munkács tried to organise their diocese and schools according to the tradition
and pattern set by the Roman Catholic Church. In the first decades of
Maria-Therese’s rule the bishoprics were already divided into administrative
units headed by an archdeacon, and these, in their turn, also were divided into
smaller ones with a dean at the head of them.[4] The seat of the
diocese was transferred from Munkács into Ungvár in 1778.
The official administrative language
of the diocese, as of the whole country, was Latin, but here parallel with the
Latin a special Slavic administrative language was in use which was a mixture
of Church Slavic, of the Rusyn language
used in Subcarpathia and of the Galician variant of the literary Ukrainian
language. This language of Church administration, absorbing the elements of the
above languages, served at the same time as the literary language of the Rusyns
in the 18th century. This language was also used in the Greek
Catholic theological seminary of Munkács and later in Ungvár where the seminary
was transferred. The work of a priest is independent of the ethnicity of the
believers. They tried and are trying now to serve them in their native
language. Therefore, the canonical visitations made at the end of the 18th
century indicated the priest’s knowledge of languages. In this respect it is
interesting to mention András Bacsinszky’s language policy. After finishing his
theological studies in Nagyszombat he was nominated as assistant minister in
Hajdúdorog. In 1763, after parson György Szabados was transferred to Munkács,
he became parson of Hajdúdorog and shortly afterwards archdeacon of county
Szabolcs and the Hajdú District. His activity in the region of Szabolcs and the
Hajdúság complied with the ethnical-cultural conditions of this area. Later,
already as a bishop, he continued this multilingual practice in the
administration of his bishopric. According to the prescriptions of the Church
he kept the registers in Church Slavic, for the believers, if needed, he made
out certificates, notes contracts and receipts in Hungarian. He correcponded
with the magistrates and the lieutenant of the town Dorog in Hungarian, with
the principial church authority in Hungarian and Ruthenian while he wrote his
letters to the magistrate of the county in Latin.
As
archdeacon of county Szabolcs he corresponded with the parishes in Hungarian.
After being consecrated bishop of the Greek Catholic Church he went on with his
language policy. Many of his letters are preserved in the archdeaconal archive
of Dorog which testify to his exellent Hungarian style. Hungarian
Church-historians point out that he made use of the Hungarian language even in
the process of the Slavic liturgy when some paraliturgical songs could be sung
in vernacular. He himself translated some of these songs into Hungarian.[5]
The Greek Catholics of Europe at
that time lived in two states – in the Hungarian Kingdom and in Poland. It is
from here that they spread all over the world in the following centuries. The
history and fate of the Greek Catholics in these two multinational countries
had several common features but many different ones as well. One of the
differences is that in the 18th century a large group of
Subcarpathian Rusyns moved to the south of the country, to the region of
Bácska. Settling in the towns of Bácskeresztúr, Kucora, Újvidék etc. first they
were under the jurisdiction of the bishop in Kalocsa. Later they were joined to
the bishopric of Kőrös (Križevác). During the 18th century all the
Greek Catholic priests of the new Rusyn settlements were from Subcarpathia,
from their old diocese.[6]
In
the following pages we will describe the ethnic and language situation in the
parishes and outparishes in the diocese. We will use sources of the 18th
and 19th centuries to illustrate these conditions.
Counties |
Number of decanal districts |
Number of
parishes |
Number of Greek
Catholics |
Number of
outparishes |
||||
|
1792 |
1806 |
1792 |
1806 |
1792 |
1806 |
1792 |
1806 |
Abaúj and Torna |
2 |
3 |
23 |
22 |
19220 |
19602 |
233 |
232 |
Bereg |
7 |
7 |
74 |
76 |
39959 |
50388 |
146 |
171 |
Borsod |
1 |
1 |
10 |
10 |
8344 |
10035 |
102 |
111 |
Máramaros |
10 |
10 |
124 |
130 |
74633 |
106924 |
44 |
51 |
Sáros |
6 |
6 |
85 |
71 |
44703 |
50898 |
247 |
260 |
Szabolcs |
2 |
3 |
36 |
38 |
22941 |
29682 |
99 |
110 |
Szatmár |
10 |
10 |
127 |
129 |
74308 |
90196 |
99 |
108 |
Szepes and Gömör |
2 |
2 |
18 |
19 |
19431 |
22336 |
104 |
93 |
Ugocsa |
2 |
2 |
33 |
31 |
19679 |
23291 |
34 |
37 |
Ung |
5 |
5 |
66 |
68 |
38522 |
49266 |
137 |
147 |
Zemplén |
11 |
11 |
133 |
130 |
81774 |
89345 |
309 |
340 |
Total : |
58 |
60 |
729 |
724 |
443514 |
541963 |
1554 |
1660 |
County |
Population 1804 |
Number of
Greek Catholics, 1806 |
Proportion of Gr.Catholics in the county % |
Number of Rusyns 1806 |
Proportion of Rusyns in the county % |
Abaúj-Torna |
145125 |
19602 |
13,41 |
11874 |
8,18 |
Bereg |
79217 |
50388 |
63,61 |
48753 |
61,54 |
Borsod |
125141 |
10035 |
8,02 |
5605 |
4,48 |
Máramaros |
99682 |
106924
(!) |
? |
66455 |
66,677 |
Sáros |
150833 |
50898 |
33,74 |
50211 |
33,29 |
Szabolcs
(+Hajdú) |
142709 |
29682 |
20,80 |
2233 |
1,56 |
Szatmár |
166389 |
90196 |
54,21 |
5054 |
3,04 |
Szepes
and Gömör |
115538 |
22336 |
16,53 |
10835 |
9,38 |
Ugocsa |
32627 |
23291 |
71,39 |
18870 |
57,84 |
Ung |
76702 |
49266 |
64,23 |
46872 |
61,11 |
Zemplén |
222889 |
89345 |
40,08 |
79024 |
35,45 |
Total : |
1356852 |
541963 |
|
345786 |
|
As the description of 1806 has
data about the villages, it is possible for us to make a comparison with the
data of the description made by Elek Fényes in 1851 and published in his
Geographical Dictionary (Geográphiai Szótár) where in alphabetical order he
gives all the important data of the towns, villages and even farmsteads in
Hungary.
According
to these descriptions in 1806 in the 724 parishes and in the 1660 outparishes
there lived 541, 863 believers. The number of parish priests was 705. The
number of outparishes with their own church was 293 and they were mostly in
counties Sáros (66), Bereg (61) and in Zemplén (51). In the early history of
the bishoprics they must have been independent parishes. According to the demands
of the state authorities the number of the independent parishes and parish
priests had to be reduced in the course of
administrative regulations. The description made in 1792 gives 720
parishes with Church Slavic and Rumanian as liturgical languages. The canonical
visitation of Manuel Olsavszky
containing the data of ten dioceses and made half a century earlier gives 839
parishes, so in 50 years this number fell by 134. In the period between 1792
and 1806 the number of places inhabited partly by Greek Catholics increased by
200 in the territory the desciptions were made. On the other hand the number of
outparishes increased, in 1792 amounting to 1458. In 1806 to one parish fell
2,29 outparishes and 749 believers. In this respect there were considerable
differences between the counties. More than 10 outparishes fell to one parish
in counties Abaúj and Borsod but in county Szatmár this number was even less
than one. In counties Borsod and Szepes the number of believers in one parish
was over 1000, in counties Bereg and Zemplén this number was less than 700.
The
majority of the believers in the diocese were Rusyns, one third of them were
Rumanians and in some places the number of the Hungarian believers was also
considerable.
In
none of the counties did the number of the Greek Catholics reach 100 % of the
population.[7]
In
the 18th century the leading clerics of the diocese, the bishops,
the archdeacons, the vicars of the Máramaros district originated from western
territories of the discese[8]. The cultural advantages
of these western territories can be explained by various, mostly social
reasons. Here the economic conditions, the job opportunities were much better
than elsewhere in Subcarpathia, and as a result of this there were good schools
and colleges in the region, rather close to the Rusyn villages.
Describing
the conditions of the 18th century we have to underline the role the
Basilians and their monasteries played in the history of the Rusyns. The
majority of these monasteries were founded at the end of the 17th
and at the beginning of the 18th century: Misztice in 1686,
Kisberezna at the end of the 17th century, Bikszád 1700, Bukóc 1742,
Máriapócs 1749. The small closters of Máramaros were built also in this period.
The old monastery of Körtvélyes was destroyed in 1687 during the uprising led
by prince Thököly. The monastery of Krasznibrod, first mentioned by a document
from 1603, was deserted in the war of independence waged by Rákóczi against the
Hapsburgs and was peopled only decades after the war, in 1729. The old
monastery of Munkács-Csernekhegy was also damaged.
As a
result of the concentrated attacks of the Protestant estates and local
“enlighted” intellectuals during the rule of Emperor Joseph II all the 14 Greek
Catholic monasteries and closters in Máramaros (Transylvania) were suspended.
In the 7 monasteries outside this territory there lived 95 monks. The bishops
generally were chosen from among the Basilian monks. This tradition changed
after bishop János Bradács. Up to bishop Olsavszky the bishops lived in the
monastery of Munkács and up to 1733 the bishops of Munkács usually were at the
same time provosts (ihumens) of the monastery of Munkács. After the death of
bishop Gennadius Bizánczy the provosts of the diocese of Munkács elected Gedeon
Pazin, provost of the monastery in Kisberezna, protoihumen (head provost). From
this time on the Basilian monasteries of Subcarpathia make up an independent
province of the Basilian order in Hungary. In the course of the 18th
century the Basilian order maintained several types of schools.
There are no reliable data about the
educational conditions prevailing at the end of the 17th and at the
beginning of the 18th century.[9] According to
common opinion the priests took their sons (called popovich in Slavic) and if
they had no sons then the son of the cantor or of a wealthier farmer and taught
them to write, to read and to carry out the rites of the Church. After some
years of work as a cantor these young men, usually already married and
supporting their family with farming, were presented to the bishop who ordained
them priest or deacon. Before being ordained they had to take an exam in church
singing, in liturgics and in moral theology. There was already some kind of
training in the monastery of Munkács as well. The regular, organised training
of priests, however, started in Munkács only in 1744 when bishop Manuel
Olsavszky organised a priesters’ seminary and a school for cantors. At the
beginning the seminary had only two-year-courses and in the first year the
teaching consisted of writing, reading and some elementary mathematics. In the
second year the pupils, sometimes adult and married young people, had to learn
some catechesis and moral theology. As the seminary had no financial support
from the state, the teachers had to work at the same time as parish priests in
the parish of Oroszvéges, a settlement close to Munkács. The majority of the
teachers were well educated people, graduates of the Nagyszombat University or
of the College of Eger. It is known, for example, that János Kopcsay graduated
at the Pázmáneum in Vienna.
To
help the seminarists and the priests to learn Latin bishop Olsavszky published
a schoolbook in 1776 in Kolozsvár in which the Church Slavic and Latin texts
were printed parallel.[10]
When
the seat of the bishopric was transferred from Munkács to Ungvár the seminary also moved to the ancient
castle of the Drugeths. The training was extended to four years. In the last
years of bishop Bacsinszky’s administration the Ruthenian gave way to Latin in
the seminary.[11] In the 18th
century in addition to the seminary of Munkács and Ungvár, Greek Catholic
priests were also trained in Nagyszombat, Eger, Vienna, Pest, Lemberg. Later in
Subcarpathia all the graduates of these institutions had important positions.
Ruthenians
studied in Nagyszombat from the end of the 17th century.
Thanks to the Jany-foundation all the Ruthenians who later became bishops in
the 18th century studied here, for example the brothers Olsavszky,
Gábor Blazsovszky, János Bradács, András Bacsinszky. Almost all who had some
important posts in the Church at this time, the vicars of Máramaros including,
were also graduates of this University.[12] In the Illyrian
College of the Nagyszombat University the students learned the Greek Catholic
liturgies in Ruthenian using, naturally, the the primer and cathecism of De
Camelis and the casuistics of bishop Bizánczy.[13]
In
the period between 1754-1770 six Ruthenians learned each year in the Roman
Catholic seminary of Eger.[14] For them special
courses were held in Church Slavic and in Greek Catholic liturgics.[15]
Bishop
András Bacsinszky in many of his circulars discussed the Greek Catholic
priests’ training. He demanded that a knowledge of Church Slavic and experience
in church singing were preconditions for students to be accepted for further
studies. In one of his circulars, issued in 1806, he writes that the number of
clerical students from his diocese in the institutions of Ungvár, Eger, Nagyszombat and Pest is 120
and all of them learn at the costs of the state. He was aware of the
disadvantages the Ruthenian students might have in Church Slavic and Greek
Catholic (Russian) liturgics if they learned in Latin secondary schools and
then graduated also at Latin (Roman Catholic) institutions. Therefore he
ordered that “before sending their sons to Latin seminaries the parish priests
were to teach them their mother tongue, the fundaments and rites of the Greek
Catholic religion. They were to reinforce all skills and knowledge in them
needed for a future priest. Bacsinszky also prescribed that the Greek Catholic
students of Latin schools who wanted to be a priest were to take an exam “in Ruthenian studies” when at home in the
summer holiday.[16]
We do not know when the first
Ruthenian students were sent to the Pázmáneum, the Roman Catholic
seminary in Vienna founded by Péter Pázmány. We have archive documents only
about János Petkovszky and János Kopcsay testifying that they graduated at the
Pázmáneum.[17] János Kopcsay’s
brother also finished this seminary and he worked in Bácskeresztúr (in the
south). In 1774 Maria-Therese founded in Vienna the Barbareum, the
central Greek Catholic seminary for students from Galicia, Subcarpathia (7-9
students each year), Croatia and Transylvania. It was here that Gergely
Tarkovics, the later parson of Hajdúdorog studied. In 1783 Emperor Joseph II
closed down the Barbareum to be reopened only 20 years later by Ferenc I in
1803. The Ruthenian students of the closed Barbareum were transferred to the
newly established seminary in Lemberg. The seminary of Lemberg became the
central Greek Catholic priesters’ training institution of the whole empire. In
1788-89 it had 7, in 1790 6 students from Hungary.
We
have to emphasise also the role of the Studium Rutheneum (1784-1809),
founded by the Austrian government, the first rector of which was Mihály
Scsavinszky from Hungary respectively Subcarpathia. 6 of its 16 teachers were
Subcarpathian Rusyns. Two of them, Péter Lódy and János Zemancsik emigrated to
Russia. Scsavinszky, the rector of the Studium Rutheneum, returned to Ungvár to
become the prorector of the seminary there.
In
one third of the parishes in the diocese of Munkács the language of the liturgy
was Rumanian.[18] For the students
from parishes with liturgy in Rumanian bishop Olsavszky organised special
theological training in village Turc. He appointed the son of Miklós Pap, the
archdeacon’s, teacher of these courses
organised for “future priests”. In this way part of the students from the
Rumanian parishes of Ugocsa, Szatmár and Máramaros learned in the school of
Turc, while the rest learned in the seminary of Ungvár, transferred here from
Munkács. For the sake of Rumanian students from parishes with Rumanian liturgy
some liturgical subjects were in Rumanian.The Rumanian liturgical books for
these parishes in the diocese were printed in Bucarest, Jaşi, Gyulafehérvár,
Balázsfalva, Fogaras, Tirgovişte etc.
We know little about the the history of cantors’ training in this region. In the period under survey the majority of those working as cantors were in reality sons of the priest (popovichs). So the knowledge and the skills needed for this work they learned from their father at home. The first, more or less organized form of cantors’ training is connected with the seminary of Munkács and in this way with the priesters’ training. The charters of bishop Manuel Olsavszky issued for the diocese of Munkács urged that the popovichs were to enroll in this school in Munkács, otherwise they might lose their right to work as cantors. The cantors at the same time were obliged to do the job of a teacher as well. The regulations of bishop János Bradács concerning this school in Munkács list the requirements for future cantors (Regulae pro Scholis Munkácsiensibus). According to these regulations the popovichs (ie. the sons of priests working as cantors) are supposed to be able to sing the Hirmologion, to know the basic tenets of the religion, to know read and write and to know by heart the repeating parts of the liturgy, the prokimens, the tropars, the stihiras and the glorifications. The “hirmologionists” ie. the future cantors were to present their written exercises, made at least two times a day, to their superiors every week. The prescriptions concerning their behaviour and discipline were the same as those prescribed for the seminarists. The Ratio Educationis I, although it separated the training of cantors from the training of priests, established no independent institutions for this as a form of higher learning based on elementary education. In this way the training of cantors was assigned to schools giving primary or secondary education. All educational districts had their own so called “normal” schools and this type of school was to take charge of schoolmasters’ training and cantors’ training. Such a “normal” school worked in Nagykároly preparing cantors and schoolmasters for Greek Catholic village schools. Similar training went on in the schools of the Basilian monasteries in Krasznibród, in Bukóc, Munkács and Máriapócs. There are data from the last third of the 18th century testifying that the archdeaconal centers also had schools with cantors’ training. In the archdeaconal school of Hajdúdorog, for example, the future cantors learned their subjects in Ruthenian and Rumanian languages.
The circulars of bishops Bradács and Bacsinszky often deal with the duties of the schoolmaster-cantors.
The centrally organized training of schoolmasters started only with the foundation of the Schoolmasters’ Training College in Ungvár.
The
opinions of the historians differ about the exact date of the foundation of
this college. They put it in either 1793 or in 1794. The decree about the the
foundation of a
schoolmasters’ training college in Ungvár was issued by the Council of the
Governor-General in 1791. The circular of town Olaszliszka No 951 AJ for the
years 1790-1797 reads as follows: “According to the decree of the Council of the
Governor-General
a school master is appointed in the school of Ungvár to teach the sons of the
Rusyn nation. The young people who wish to take part in this training should in
St. Andrew’s month 10 appear in that school to learn the methods of teaching.
1792.” [19]
The
parish or public schools
About the history of the parish and public schools we have several data dispersed in smaller publications but we have not a comprehensive work summing up the results.[20] The census of Maria-Therese made in 1768 gives the number of priests and schoolmasters. According to this at that time there were twice as many priests as schoolmasters-cantors. In this way in the 18th century we may put the number of the schoolmasters in this diocese at 300. The census of 1806 gives 95 public schools but notes that the teaching of the catechesis goes on in 793 villages.
From the
census of 1741 we have interesting data about the living conditions of the
schoolmasters. It turns out that in the archdeaconal district of Ungvár there
were only three villages without schoolmasters: Klokocska, Felsőremete,
Poroskó. The schoolmaster of Ternava sustained himself by working on
the fields. The schoolmasters of Poruba, Jószan, Alsóribnice are cottars
doing their sockage to the landlord, as their income is only a third part of
the priest’s income (a third of the surplice fee). The same is true about the
situation of the schoolmaster in Gálocs who lives in the building of the
school. Also in the building of the school lives the schoolmaster of Őr
whose income is half mérő wheat (1 mérő = 62,5 litres)
from each houshold. The schoolmaster-cantor of Ubrezs hired his land and
his annual income was 8 Hungarian Forints. The schoolmaster of Ungvár had the
greatest income: he was paid 23-24 Denars from each (100) houshold of the
parish, altogether 24 Forints. The
majority of the parish schoolmasters were paid by the parish priest, in this
way their income depended on the favour of the priest (ex gratia parochi). This
was the case in villages Gézsén, Jeszenova, Felsőribnice, Hliviscse, Barkóc,
Hunkóc, Podhragya, Benetine, Koromlya, Alsódomonya, Radvánc, Kereknye, Mátyóc,
Lekartóc, Bező, Felsőnémeti.[21]
We have data about the parish schools and schoolmasters also from the sockage regulations of Maria-Therese made in 1769-1794.[22] We quote from this: village Szulin 1773 “ each houshold pays as tithe 60 sheaves of oat, four breads and one mérő wheat to the priest. For burials he gets 7-8 Tallérs, for marrying 7-8 Máriáss. The schoolomaster (deák) gets one köböl oats.“
Jakubjan 1773: “All peasants with a quarter-piece of land have to pay 8 sheaves of barley. 4 sheaves of oat to the priest. The schoolmaster gets from each peasant with a quarter-piece of land one quarter köböl barley, altogether 26 köböls. The priest for one burial gets 7 Máriáss, for christening gets as many turaks as there are sponsors. For marrying gets one RFts and 30 Krajcárs.”
Krempach 1773: “The priest in Jarembina gets from the peasants with a house yearly 6 Dukáts, the schoolmaster gets 5 köböl wheat from the whole village.”
I think it proper to quote the data referring to village Poracs
1773 (according to historical documents it has a school already in 1593[23])
: The peasants of the village pay to the priest a tithe of wheat,
barley, rye, oat, buckwheat and flax. In addition to it he has a hayfield (with
a size to cut down in six days). The local schoolmaster gets ¾ mérő
barley
from the peasants with a half piece of land and half of it from peasants only
with a quarter piece of land.
The curriculum of
the parish schools included learning to write, read, to know the catechism and
to be able to sing the church songs. As the language of the liturgy was Church
Slavic, it was taught even in schools where the pupils were Hungarians. This
language at that time was called “Russian” by the Hungarians.[24]
Bishop András
Bacsinszky took part in the conference of the Greek Catholic bishops held in
Vienna in 1773, where importante decisions were taken about the liturgical
books, the feast days of the calendar, the positions and conditions of the
priests and believers. It is important to underline that they urged the Empress
to make the authorities in the counties and the landlords build more schools
for the Greek Catholics. It was also demanded that the Greek Catholics were
given freedom to assert themselves according to their abilities and that the
Greek Catholic children had free school-education..[25]
On the motion of Máté Markovics, the director of the University Typography, the Council of the Governor-General consulted bishop Bacsinszky about the schoolbooks his diocese needed. They also asked him about the language and characters to be used in these books. He put in a claim for a dozen schoolbooks, considering useful not only the publication of schoolbooks on good morals, on the tenets of the Church, on the rites of the liturgy but also those on arithmetics, on the duties of a good citizen. These last ones, like the biblical stories, he wanted to publish in the native language.
His
proposal about the schoolbooks to be published, submitted to the Council of
Governor-General in 1806, has information also about the Hungarian pupils
living in towns with mixed Rumanian – Hungarian – Rusyn population. Fof
financial reasons he did not want to print the primers in two languages
(Hungarian –Rusyn), instead he proposed that the Hungarian used their own
Hungarian primers in these cases.[26]
Bishop András Bacsinszky about public schools,
catechisation and the training of cantors
It follows from the foregoing that education and school-teaching were closely connected with the activity of the priest. In the circulars of the bishops problems often come up concerning public education, national schools, the training of schoolmaster-cantors and priests.
The curriculum of Catholic primary schools had already been fixed by the regulations issued in Nagyszombat in 1560. According to these regulations the teaching in these schools included learning to read and write, the study of the catechism and singing church songs. Almost the same aims were formulated by the circulars issued for the Rusyn primary schools.[27] Bacsinszky, however, in addition to all these emphasized the importance of studying the “Christian lore” and the catechisms especially. The circulars of Gergely Tarkovics, archdeacon of Hajdúdorog, carry on the same requirements set for the schools. He later became censor of the University Typography in Buda, then, as bishop of Eperjes, he did much for the Rusyn schools.
In his circulars Bacsinszky demands that both girls and boys be taught catechism up to the age of 14.[28] The lack of schoolbooks, however, made itself felt negatively everywhere. The teaching went on in most schools without printed catechisms. This situation changed only with the publication of János Kutka’s catechism in 1801 in Buda. In a special circular Bacsinszky prescribed for all parishes to buy Kutka’s catechism. The young couples before marriage were to take an exam proving that they knew this catechism. The cantors had to learn the catechism by heart, because, as Bacsinszky put it: “who wants to teach others first himself should learn.”[29] In Bacsinszky’s opinion the catechisation was compulsory not only because of God and the laws of the Gospel but also because of the orders of the King and Emperor. Therefore, the parents of children not taking part in the studying of the catechism had to be reported to the authorities of the county administration. He himself demanded four reports to be sent to him yearly about the number of pupils taking part in the study of the catechism. In his circular of 1802 he writes about the national schools: Where the number of children of school age is about 50 a national school is to be organised with learning from text-books in their mother tongue. The parish priest should take care of the work in these schools. – For him the use of these schools was enormous. He did not, however, insist on using books in teaching by all means. – The main aim in these schools is to teach the children in their mother tongue. They have to learn their native language and the fundaments of the religion. It is the duty of the local parish priest to make sure the pupil know how to write, to read and sing the church songs, if they know the content of the catechism.[30]
The parish priests and cantors, according to Bacsinszky, were to send their children to these schools if they wanted to raise the authority of them. Two reports a year had to be sent by the priests to the archdeacons about the the work in these national schools. The archdeacons in their turn were to send the results of these reports to their bishop. In 1797 a primer was published in Buda for use in the Rusyn national schools. It was republished in 1799[31] and then four times more in the 19th century.
In the
beginning of the 80s Bacsinszky ordered that at the costs of the believers all
archdeaconal districts organised a school where in addition to writing, reading
and the study catechism special attention was paid to church singing. This
order was repeated 20 years later in 1802[32].
Such schools of cantors’ training were organised in all archdeaconal districts
except for the most backward and poor regions of Verhovina (These types of
schools appeared there only in 1815). In one of his letters sent to the town of
Hajdúdorog in 1797 Bacsinszky writes about the cantors’ school in that town. He
asks the magistrate to take good care about the intoduction of the new
“normative” method into the teaching, so that the training of cantors won’t
suffer from it. “Most Noble Magistrate, … Concerning the conditions of
schools and schoolmasters, I am not against the method of Normative Teaching,
what is more, I am for it, but at the same time I wish that it had the same
good results the old methods had, when the Noble Town supported the pupils
coming from other places. They, namely, after having become cantors spread in the
diocese our sacred Eastern Rite and popularized our Basilian order and their
activity was everywhere commandable and acknowledged. I wish that these scools
with Hungarian and Rumanian languages may prosper also in the future.” [33]
From the
circulars it becomes more or less clear what the duties, the rights and the
living conditions of the cantors were like. According to these circulars the
cantors were expected to be active doing their duties, sober and moderate in
their private life. In addition to taking part in the liturgy their main job
was to teach the children., to give them the essentials of the religion based on the study of the
catechism.[34] Once a year
they had to take part in the conference of the archdeaconal district and also
once a year they had to take an exam in
Christian lore, in the current directives of the Church and in church singing.
Without the consent of their archdeacon the parish priest had no right to
suspend the cantors, to dismiss them and to take a new one. It was not allowed
for the parish priests to make the cantors work for them even if it was some
little housework. One third of the regular parish income had to be given to the
cantor and also one Krajcár from all extra payments paid for liturgical
services. The archdeacon also had to watch over the morals of the cantor and to
ensure that he was not overburdened by taxes.[35]
The school of Máriapócs
also should be mentioned here. Since 1770 the school had two types of
education, one ecclesiastical with theological and philosophical courses and a
secular one with two optional forms: grammatical and urbano-national.[36]
In 1803 the school of Máripócs had altogether 102 pupils from 30 different places. By the birthplaces of the pupils we can find out that the majority of them came from the counties Bereg, Szepes, Sáros and Zemplén. Most of the pupils were Hungarians and Greek Catholics.[37]
The number of the Students |
their religion |
nationality |
|||||
|
Gr. |
Cath. Roman |
Prot. |
Hungarian |
Rusyn |
Rumanian |
|
I-II. classes |
63 |
48 |
14 |
1 |
26 |
26 |
11 |
III-IV. classes |
39 |
37 |
2 |
- |
30 |
8 |
1 |
To write a detailed monograph about the education in the diocese of Munkács will be possible only within the framework of a book. The author of this book should rely on the results of studies done already in this field and also on the sources kept in the archives. The curricula and schoolbooks, the data of the living conditions of the priests, the schoolmasters and cantors play an important part in this respect. All this material should be organised according to chronological and geographical categories and according to the level and type of teaching (primary schools, the training of priests, schoolmasters and cantors). This paper only wanted to call the attention to the actuality of this subject and to the work still to be done.
[1] Cp. Bendász István–Koi István: A Munkácsi Görög Katolikus Egyházmegye lelkészségeinek 1792. évi katalógusa. Nyíregyháza, 1994; A munkácsi görög katolikus püspökség lelkészségeinek 1806. évi összeírása. Vasvári Pál Társaság Füzetei 3. Nyíregyháza, 1990; Botlik, József: Hármas kereszt alatt. Görög katolikusok Kárpátalján az ungvári uniótól napjainkig (1646–1997). Bp. 1997; Bendász, István: Részletek a Munkácsi Görög Katolikus Egyházmegye történetéből. Ungvár, 1999.
[2] Cp. Hodinka, Antal: A munkácsi görög-katolikus püspökség története. Budapest, 1910. 41, 420.
[3] Cp. Bendász, István: A munkácsi egyházmegye területváltozásairól. In. A munkácsi görög katolikus püspökség lelkészségeinek 1806. évi összeírása. Nyíregyháza, 1990. 71-76.
[4] Cp. Udvari, István: A munkácsi görög katolikus egyházmegye lelkészségeinek 1741. évi összeírása. (Csereháti és zempléni esperesi kerületek). In. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve. XXXVII. Miskolc, 1998, 535-546; idem: Szatmár vármegyei görög katolikus parókiák 1741. évi összeírása. In. Boros, László (szerk.): Erdély természeti és történeti földrajza. Nyíregyháza, 2000. 366-381.
[5] In detail about this see.: Bacsinszky András munkácsi és Tarkovics Gergely eperjesi megyéspüspökök kapcsolata Szabolcs vármegyével és a Hajdúsággal. Sz-Sz-B-Megyei Levéltári Évkönyv XII. Nyíregyháza, 1997. 137-161; also in: Dudás, László (edit.): A Hajdúdorogi Főesperesi Levéltár iratainak lajstroma és mutatója. 1562–1819. A Görög Katolikus Püspöki Levéltár Kiadványai III. Nyíregyháza, 1999; B.Papp János: Hajdúdorog iskolatörténete (1638-1948). Hajdúdorog, 1998.
[6] Cp. Bárth, János: Egy bácskai ruszin falu, Keresztúr telepítése a XVIII. század közepén. In. Halász Péter (edit.): A Duna-menti népek hagyományos műveltsége. Budapest, 1991. 301-310; Udvari, István: A bácskai ruszinok és az ortodoxia a XVIII. században. In. H.Tóth Imre (edit.): Az ortodoxia története Magyarországon a XVIII. századig. Szeged, 1995. 55-69.
[7] In detail see: A munkácsi görög katolikus püspökség lelkészségeinek 1806. évi összeírása ... Op.cit. 64-65.
[8] Think of the fact that four bishops of the diocese were from county Szepes
[9] Cp: Pirigyi, István: A görög katolikus magyarság története. Budapest, 1982. 53-56.
[10] Elementa puerilis institutionis in lingva latina. Kolozsvár, 1746. Reprint edition: Nyíregyháza, 1999
[11] Hadzsega, Jurij: Istorija uzhgorodskoj bogoslovskoj seminariji v glavnix chertax. Uzhgorog, 1928.
[12] Hodinka, Antal: Papnövendékeink Nagyszombatban 1722-től 1760-ig. Zorja–Hajnal. Ungvár, 1941. 1-2. sz..
[13] A detailed analysis of the language in the books printed for the Rusyns in the 18th century see in: Udvari I.: A kárpátukrán (ruszin) írásbeliség története a XVIII. században. Magyarországi hivatalos dokumentumok alapján. (Ph.D. dissertation ) Nyíregyháza, 1986. Archive of the Hung. Acad. of Sciences. Budapest.
[14] Duliskovics, Ioann: Istoricheskije cherti Uhro-Russkix III. Ungvár. 1877. 220-226.
[15] Cp. Földvári, Sándor: Eger szerepe a kárpátaljai ruszin, görög katolikus kultúrában. In. Beke Margit–Bárdos István (edit.): Magyarok Kelet és Nyugat metszésvonalán. A nemzetközi történészkonferencia előadásai. Esztergom, 1994. 297-308; idem: Eger szerepe a ruszin papképzésben. Studia Ukrainica et Rusinica Nyíregyháziensia 5. Nyíregyháza, 1997. 203-212; idem: Habina Lukács egri szláv könyvhagyatékából. Magyar Könyvtárszemle. 112. évf. 1996. 3. sz. 385-391; idem: Felvilágosodás és nemzeti megujúlás a kárpátaljai ruszin kultúrában. Magyar Filozófiai Szemle. 40. évf. 1996. 1-3. sz. 53-80.
[16] More about it in András Bacsinszky’s letter to János Kopcsay. HPL. Fasc. 10. №39. 1793.
[17] Cp. Kopcsay János hajdúdorogi esperes (1745–1814) életrajzáról. Görög Katolikus Szemle Kalendáriuma. 1997. Nyíregyháza, 1996. 59-60.
[18] Cp. Bendász I. – Koi I.: id. Op. cit. 36.
[19] The Archive of county Zemplén. Sátoraljaújhely, V.8.
[20] Szabó, József: Görög katolikus alsófokú oktatás az osztrák önkényuralom koráig. Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle. 1991. 3. sz. 294-304; idem: Görög katolikus népoktatás az önykényuralom korától az iskolák államosításáig. In. Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Nyíregyháziensis. tomus. 13/A. Nyíregyháza, 1992. 9–17; Kriveczky, Béla: Falusi kisiskolák a XVIII. századi Szabolcs megyében. In. Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Nyíregyháziensis. tomus 8/a. Nyíregyháza, 1980. 17-32.
[21] Udvari, István: Obrazchiky z istoriji pudkarpatskyx Rusynuv. XVIII. stolitije. Uzhgorod, 2000. 107-157.
[22] A Mária Terézia-féle úrbérrendezés szlovák nyelvű dokumentumai. Szepességi ruszin falvak népélete Mária Terézia korában. Vasvári Pál Társaság Füzetei 4. Nyíregyháza, 1991. 27-202.
[23] Cp. Hodinka A.: A munkácsi... 784.
[24] Cp. Udvari, István: Adalékok a XVIII. századi hajdúdorogi cirillbetűs iratokhoz. In. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve XXV–XXVI. Miskolc, 1998. 325-338; idem: Vasvári Pál hajdúböszörményi éveiről. Szabolcs Szatmári Szemle. 1989. 4. sz. 431-440.
[25] Cp. Pirigyi I.: A görög-katolikus magyarság története. Nyíregyháza, 1982. 96-101.
[26] Cp: Vasvári Pál Társaság Füzetei 9. Nyíregyháza, 1992. 199.
[27] The circulars are influenced by the educational regulations of the Hapsburg enlightened despotism, the Ratio Educationis. Cp. Ratio Educationis. Az 1777-i és az 1806-i kiadás magyar nyelvű fordítása. Fordította, jegyzetekkel és mutatókkal ellátta: Mészáros I.: Bp. 1981. 62-69.
[28] About teaching in schools and catechisms see also M. Grigássy’s circulars. Udvari I.: Obrazcsiky... Op. cit. 241-266.
[29] A. Bacsinszky’s circular 1802. jún. 14. HPL. Fasc. 16. No 3.
[30] A. Bacsinszky’s circular. 1802. aug. 1. HPL. Fasc. 16. No 6. Cp: Kutka Ioann: Katechisis malij.... Buda, 1801. Reprint edition of the work: Nyíregyháza, 1997. Its influence on the Rusyn language is enormous. It was republished more than ten times. It was translated into Hungarian by Sándor Mikita, parish priest of the Munkács diocese. This was also republished many times.
[31] Cp. Bukvar jazika ruskaho s prochijim rukovodijem nachinajuschix uchitisja....Buda, 1797. The author of the primer is also János Kutka. Reprinted in Nyíregyháza, in 1998.
[32] A. Bacsinszky’s circular 1803. márc. 12. HPL. Fasc. 16. No 6.
[33] HPL. Fasc. 10. No 17.
[34] A. Bacsinszky’s circular 1795. márc. 28. HPL. Fasc. 12. No 34.
[35] A. Bacsinszky’s circular, HPL. Fasc. 15. No 29.
[36]In detail see: Szabó J.: A görögkatolikus iskolaügy és a máriapócsi iskolaszervezési törekvések. Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle 1989. 3 sz. 264-278.
[37] Udvari I.: Adalékok a XVIII. századi máriapócsi cirill betűs kéziratokhoz. (Ismeretlen iskolatörténeti adatok Szabolcsból). Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle 1988. 4. sz. 379-389.