István Udvari

Education in the diocese of Munkács in the 18^th 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 18^th 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 18^th 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 18^th 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 18^th 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 18^th 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 18^th and 19^th 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 18^th 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 18^th 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 17^th and at the beginning of the 18^th century: Misztice in 1686, Kisberezna at the end of the 17^th 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 18^th century the Basilian order maintained several types of schools.

The training of priests

There are no reliable data about the educational conditions prevailing at the end of the 17^th and at the beginning of the 18^th 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 18^th 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 17^th century. Thanks to the Jany-foundation all the Ruthenians who later became bishops in the 18^th 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.

The training of cantors

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 18^th 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 18^th 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 19^th 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 18^th 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.

[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.

[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.