The agitation movement of the greek-catholic clergy of eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The agitation movement of the greek-catholic clergy of eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s

Petro Kostyuchok

The agitation movement of the greek-catholic clergy of eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s

The article analyzes the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Slovakia in the 1920s to join Transcarpathian Ruthenia and introduce the Ukrainian language in schools and state institutions. The territory of propaganda distribution has been determined. The center of agitation was Presov, where the Ruthenian league union, which included Greek Catholic priests, operated. The article describes the course and requirements of the Rusyn/Ukrainian congresses: the annexation of Western Rusyn counties to autonomous Subcarpathian Rus, the introduction of the Russian written language in schools and governments, and the admission of local residents to public service. Along with educational requirements, the idea of annexing the ethnic Ruthenian territories of eastern Slovakia to Subcarpathian Rus became a significant direction of agitation. It was found out that the propaganda movement contributed to consolidation, politicization, and caused opposition from the authorities. The article describes the official government position on the Propaganda Movement. It is determined that 1921-1923 is a period of active agitation, and the decline of the movement begins in 1924.

The holding of the Ruthenian people's Congress in Presov on September 7, 1925, demonstrated an attempt at National Unification of Ukrainians. Delegates and guests discussed the socio-economic situation of the Ruthenian people, the political situation, and the requirements for education. The resolution adopted by the Congress notes the need to increase the number of educational institutions of various levels for the Ruthenian population in Slovakia, equalize the rights of teachers of Greek Catholic schools with teachers of Public Schools. These attempts at ethnopolitical consolidation were leveled by the Czechoslovak press and evaluated skeptically.

The author claims that the agitation movement of Greek Catholic clergy among Rusyns/Ukrainians in eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s was the result of Slovak domestic policy and its practical idea of rapid assimilation of national minorities. The Propaganda Movement in eastern Slovakia developed in two directions: for joining/uniting Transcarpathian Ruthenia and demanding the introduction of national schools and, accordingly, the language of instruction.

Keywords: Czechoslovakia, Presov, Eastern Slovakia, Subcarpathian/Transcarpathian Rus, Greek Catholic priests.

Агітаційний рух греко-католицького священства Східної Словаччини в першій половині 1920-х рр.

Петро Костючок

У статті проаналізовано агітацію греко-католицьких священників у Східній Словаччині у 1920-х рр. щодо приєднання до Підкарпатської Русі та за запровадження української мови у школах та державних установах. Визначено територію поширення агітації. Центром агітації став Пряшів, де діяв союз "Руська Ліга", до складу якого входили греко-католицькі священники. Охарактеризовано хід та вимоги з'їздів русинів/українців: приєднання західних русинських жуп до автономної Підкарпатської Русі, введення руської письмової мови до шкіл і урядів, допуск місцевих жителів до державної служби. Поряд з освітніми вимогами вагомим напрямом агітації стала ідея приєднання етнічних русинських територій Східної Словаччини до Підкарпатської Русі. З'ясовано, що агітаційний рух сприяв консолідації, політизації, викликав протидію влади. У статті охарактеризовано офіційну урядову позицію щодо агітаційного руху. Визначено, що 1921-1923 рр. - період активної агітації, з 1924 р. розпочинається спад руху.

Проведення 7 вересня 1925 р. у Пряшові руського народного конгресу продемонструвало спробу національного об'єднання українців. Делегати та гості обговорювали соціально-економічне становище руського народу, політичну ситуацію, вимоги щодо освіти. У прийнятій конгресом резолюції наголошено на потребі збільшення кількості освітніх навчальних закладів різного рівня для руського населення в Словаччині, зрівняння в правах вчителів греко-католицьких шкіл з вчителями державних шкіл. Ці спроби етнополітичної консолідації чехословацькою пресою нівелювались та оцінювались скептично. ukrainian language priests catholic

Автор стверджує, що агітаційний рух греко-католицького духовенства серед русинів/ українців у Східній Словаччині у першій половині 1920-х рр. був результатом словацької внутрішньої політики та її практичної ідеї швидкої асиміляції національних меншин. Агітаційний рух у Східній Словаччині розвивався двома напрямами: за приєднання/об'єднання до Підкарпатської Русі та вимоги впровадження національних шкіл і відповідно мови викладання.

Ключові слова: Чехословаччина, Пряшів, Східна Словаччина, Підкарпатська Русь, гре- ко-католицькі священники.

The end of the World War I, the creation of new states after the collapse of empires brought to the forefront not only the issue of state-building of the newly-created countries, but also the problem of new territories becoming their integral parts, as well as the need to find a solution to the national issues.

The state borders of Czechoslovakia, founded on October 28, 1918, were determined by the number of treaties, including the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and the Treaty of Trianon. The First Czechoslovak Republic was comprised of the territories of Bohemia, Moravia, Czech Silesia, Slovakia, Carpathian Ruthenia and Hlucmian Silesia; each of the territories had their peculiarities in development. Historian K. Shevchenko believes that the majority of the Slovak and Ruthenian population did not wholeheartedly accept the idea of the Czechoslovak statehood (Шевченко 2011, с. 9). As stated, "Slovak society was radically different from the Czech society. Upon joining the Czechoslovak Republic [they were] not sufficiently prepared to welcome the conditions of democracy and republicanism. Slovak society was dominated by the traditions of patriarchy, where the church and religion determined the way of life of the majority of Slovaks" (Кравчук 2006, с. 288).

The aim of the article is to analyze the agitation movement of the Greek Catholic clergy, to highlight its directions and peculiarities in Eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s.

Ukrainians lived in Eastern Slovakia and Transcarpathia. According to historian O. Kravchuk, comparing the attitude of the national minorities of the Czechoslovak Republic to the newly formed state, among the Germans, Hungarians, Polish and Ruthenians, the only national minority to accept it was the Ukrainian population of Transcarpathia (Кравчук 2007). Ukrainians in Transcarpathia hoped for autonomy and unification, but negotiations with Prague did not fulfill these aspirations.

From the very creation of the Czechoslovak Republic, the Slovak authorities resorted to paralyze political activity of Ruthenians in Slovakia by all means: they made it impossible to establish a Ru- thenian party center or any organizational movement related to the politicization of the Ruthenian population. On July 28, 1920, the Ruthenian people's council in Presov submitted a request to the Saris and Zemplin counties to allow the creation of a united Ruthenian People's Party, but received no response. On August 9, 1920, the Ruthenian people's council sent M. Gulyus its representative, to Varhanovce and other Ruthenian villages to organize the population and enroll new members. However, the Lemesany district government did not authorize it. Moreover, the Saris county authority did not approve of holding a meeting on August 21 in Svidnik, despite all the legal procedures having been followed. At the same time, representatives of the Ruthenian people's council held an alternative meeting in Svidnik, which resulted in Slovak gendarmes terrorizing the local population (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 467). A bold disregard of the constitutional rights of the local Ruthenian/Ukrainian community by the Slovak authorities also resulted in the refusal of the Saris county authority to accept a separate list of Ruthenian candidates to the 1920 parliamentary elections (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 467).

This kind of ethnical politics on the part of the Slovak authorities directed at the Ruthenians/Ukrainians of Eastern Slovakia resulted in the rise of an agitation movement proponing an accession to Carpathian Ruthenia and preservation of Greek Catholic schools with Ruthenian as the language of instruction as early as in 1920s. This movement was mainly headed by the Greek Catholic clergy and sometimes teachers, who remained to serve as bearers of political and national guidelines for the local population, despite their ambivalence and a certain ethnic disorientation.

In the article "How many Ruthenians are there in Slovakia" O. Hozdava stated that "all the population of the land on its ethnographic side forms an organic component of the Ukrainian people, while the national [component] is very little or completely unconscious for historical, political and economic reasons" (Slovensky Dennik 1922).

One of the means of politicization of society was to defend one's national education system. Greek Catholic priests used agitation as an important tool advocating for national Ruthenian schools. On April 23, 1921, in one of its campaign reports the Ministry of Schooling and Public Education stated that "citizens reject Slovak schools and demand Ruthenian ones instead, although they cannot speak Ruthenian" (NACR, f. PMR, inv.c.826, kart. 282).

At the beginning of September, there could be seen a considerable intensification of the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Slovakia. On September 17, 1921, a school inspector in Bratislava submitted materials to the Ministry of Schooling and Public Education regarding the agitation campaign. On October 12, 1921, during the meeting the Ministry of Schooling and Public Education jointly with the Minister for Slovak Affairs regarded the issue of agitation. On December 28, 1921, there was submitted a detailed report to the Slovak Ministry of Affairs on the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Slovakia.

In 1921, the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Slovakia was of a considerable scale. On May 6, 1921, a school inspector in Bratislava reported that "ill-informed and illiterate citizens reject Slovak schools and demand Ruthenian ones instead, although they cannot speak Ruthenian" (AKPR, f. PR, inv. c. 651). Agitation took place all over the counties populated by Ruthenians. In the Bardejov district, the agitation "is carried out mainly in the communities of Lukov, Resov and Krajna Bystra, which are the main [centers of] Greek Catholic schools" and the population seeks to use Ruthenian instead of Slovak as the official language as well as a language of teaching.

In March 1921, G. Zatkovich, the first governor of Transcarpathia since 1920, resigned in protest of the position of the Czechoslovak authorities that refused to grant autonomy to Transcarpathia, did not agree on the accession of the Presov territories and participation of Transcarpathians in parliamentary elections.

The first half of the 1920s can be characterized by a certain national-educational and socio-political work in the villages of southern Zemplin. Being the borderline of Slovak-Ruthenian/Ukrainian ethnic territories, after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy this region was characterized by significant ethnical mix and national uncertainty. Thus, in the early 1930s the settlements in this area started undergoing the process of Slovak nationalization or became completely Slovakized. The state of affairs could be explained by a highly developed level of situational identity among the local population; they flexibly adapted to political regimes. Therefore, under the Hungarian rule, the Hungarian-oriented ideology predominated among the population in these areas, but after the problem of border between Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia was settled in 1928, the population went under the Slovak rule and the respective national-state ideology.

On December 5, 1920, the prefect of the Saris county appealed to the Slovak Ministry of Affairs with an issue concerning Ruthenian agitation. The statesman argued that due to the lack of intellectual professionals, lawyers in particular, it was impossible to implement the claims of the Ruthenians. Following the pre-election compromise on November 23, 1920, Rev. M. Beskid from Legnava submitted an interpellation to the county administrative council regarding the demands of the Ruthenians. The demands included the official appointment of Ruthenians to the administrative, judicial and local offices of the Saris county, the subordination of Ruthenian schools to an appointed Ruthenian school inspector, the organization and opening of a grammar school, the approval of the official use of Ruthenian, the removal of Rev. M. Rusnak as the head of the Presov diocese (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 52).

In response to the accusations of M. Beskid, the Saris county authority stated that the implementation of these requirements was not possible due to "lack of Ruthenian intelligentsia" and because of the inconsistency of the scale of issues and the competence of the county. The official exemplified the lack of staff problem referring to J. Orlovsky, a Ruthenian appointed for the position of a chief government official in the Svidnik district and later transferred. The Greek Catholic Church was in a rather difficult position. M. Beskid demanded to remove the head of the Presov diocese Rev. M. Russnak because he was "poorly received by that small amount of nationally conscious priests and the majority of clergy in general, while the Greek Catholic church ruling is in total anarchy. "That is why, according to the repot, "it would serve in the best Slovak interests to transfer the Greek Catholic episcopate from Presov to Uzhhorod" (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 52, s. 20-22).

In 1920-1921 the agitation spread all over the Svidnik county, where "nationally "enlightened" and "awaken" Ruthenian priests supported it, while the "unawaken" so-called "Magyar-phils" tried to strike a discord between Slovaks and Ruthenians demanding to establish Ruthenian as language of schooling and instruction in all Greek Catholics communities. Consolidation in the administration in Slovakia hindered the process in the Carpathian Ruthenia to a certain extent, it also weakened the agitation in favour of the Carpathian Ruthenia among local Ruthenians, thus those "unawakened" became indifferent in the Ruthenian regard as they witnessed the statehood strength and invariability" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 685).

After G. Zatkovich, the governor of Carpathian Ruthenia, resigned on March 16, 1921, "agi- tation has weakened or even completely disappeared in some places, and is carried out only by those Greek Catholic priests who advocate Ruthenian national thought". The list of those people included S. Plokitiaki from the Humenne district, M. Beskyd and J. Hojdic from the Bardejov district, F. Simsa from the Secovce district, F. Bogdani from the Snina district, Karpati from the Presov district (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 662).

In general, in 1921, "all the agitation of Greek Catholic priests [was aimed at] Ruthenian being the administrative language, [it spread] in Slovak schools in the mainly Greek Catholics communities, so that those communities would become a part of the Carpathian Ruthenia". According to the Slovak authorities, the agitation was mainly "spreading Ruthenian influence on Slovak schools" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign.1074, s. 663).

The official orders concerning the schooling system issued in Bratislava on January 22 and July 11, 1921, recognized the right to demand "[for] the Ruthenian language to be the language of school instruction" if "Ruthenian [is] the native language of the majority of students". However, the subsequent order of November 18, 1921, stated that in those schools "where, according to Law XXVI of 1907,_ Ruthenian was not recognized as a language of instruction, it still cannot be introduced as such" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 44, sign. 6901, s. 62).

Following these instructions a school inspectorate in Bardejov sent an order to all Greek Catholic schools demanding that "those schools relied on the state language, i.e. Slovak, while the results of the census will be administratively investigated" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 44, sign. 6901, s. 62).

On April 27, 1921, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Education stated that "ill-informed and illiterate citizens reject Slovak schools and demand Ruthenian ones instead, although they cannot speak Ruthenian". The commission was proposed to be "sent to the places in question to determine the boundaries of both languages" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 676).

In the Snina district, all the four Greek-Catholic communities "which use Ruthenian in schools" "[nurtured] the idea of separating from Slovakia". The agitation work was conducted by T Bogdani. It was not unusual for statesmen to receive official demands resulting from the wave of public discontent aimed at the Slovak authorities. In particular, T Bogdani demanded to replace the Czech district school inspector F. Havlas in Snina by a different school inspector of the Ruthenian nationality (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 683).

The large-scale agitation for joining the Carpathian Ruthenia in some villages of Eastern Slovakia was accompanied by the demands of the local population to introduce Ruthenian or Russian as the language of instruction. In particular, on September 17, 1921, communities of Lukov, Resov and K. Bystra of the Bardejov district "demanded the use of Russian in place of Slovak as a language of instruction" (AKPR, f. PR, inv. c. 651, kart. 760, sign. 7).

As a result on September 17, 1921, there appeared the Ministry report stating with all the seriousness and authority of the Slovak administration that in the Bardejov school inspectorate "there are headmasters of Greek Catholic school centers who oppose the state school government and support the use of the Ruthenian language as a government language in place of Slovak". Local priests instructed teachers "to use Ruthenian as a teaching language and to write documentation in it" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 674).

Another important direction of the agitation movement was spreading the idea of joining the ethnic Ruthenian territories of Eastern Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. The city of Presov of the Presov diocese became the center of such agitation in 1921. It was the headquarters of the "Ruthenian League", an organization including predominantly Greek Catholic priests (NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 743). According to the Slovak authorities, the Uniate clergy "were the most zealous Magyar-phils before the coup and now [they] are Ruthenian nationalists, regardless of the fact that they communicate with each other in Hungarian". This organization was first headed by O. Nevytsky, a priest from Ujak Sabinov Inspectorate (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 674), later he was substituted by Dr. V. Turkyniak, a lawyer who was "a conscious Ruthenian, but [he has] little energy, he gives the organization nothing but his name" (NACR, f. PMR, inv.c.743). The main objective of the organization was that "to distribute the leaflets among the people, the League's purpose is to join the Carpathian Ruthenia"(SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 674; NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 826, kart. 282).

Campaign for joining Carpathian Ruthenia was widespread in Mihalovce and surrounding villages (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 674). In general, in the Michalovce district, the agitation was also on the roll in the villages of Vranov, Cemerne, Cicava, Sacurov, Vol'a, Topol'a, Slavkovce, Samudovce, Petrikovce, Lastorna, Secovce, and Male Raskovce (NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 826, kart. 282). In the Michalovce school inspectorate district, it was former governor Dr. G. Zatkovich who was leading the agitation. Slovak official reports indicated the comprehensive involvement of Greek Catholic priests in the agitation movement.

All the same, the Slovak authorities took to the notice that the ultimate goal of agitation for joining Carpathian Ruthenia was for these territories to become a part of Hungary (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 674). Thus, they deliberately were misinforming the Prague government considering the Hungarian irredentism and the situation in Eastern Slovakia.

Therefore, the Slovaks regarded the League of Ruthenians exclusively as a project "supported by the money and influence of Dr. G. Zatkovich". The local authorities reported that "the Ruthenian population from Saris County did not willingly volunteer to the League, and thus, to patch up the situation here, he [Dr. G. Zatkovich] is agitating in Eastern Slovakia, even going individually in separare communities. He individually agitates for the population to register as Rusyns during the census. He often visits Senator J. Lazo in V. Svidnik". Nevytsky's assistant is Beretsky, a former notary who "was persecuted by the Hungarian authorities for his Ruthenian consciousness". In general, the attitude of the population to the League was cautious, "because [people] hate those priests who play major roles in it" (NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 743).

On October 19, 1921, the Czechoslovak Council of Ministers made the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in the eastern part of Slovakia the subject of their meeting. The relevant analysis of the case was provided by a school report in Bratislava from October 17, 1921. According to information gathered in the communities of Lukov, Resov and K. Bystra of the Bardejov Inspectorate, Greek Catholic schoolmasters oppose the recommendations of state school governments and demand the use of the Russian/Ruthenian language instead of the Slovak one. However, "before the coup the schools in question had the Ruthenian language only as a school subject". At the same time, the report stated that the Ruthenian language as a language of instruction is promoted by all Greek Catholic priests, and it is done by the order of the Greek Catholic Episcopal Government in Presov. Considering the case, Greek Catholic priests and teachers received an order to use Ruthenian as a language of instruction, to write governmental books in it (NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 826, kart. 282).

In 1921 the agitation movement of Greek Catholic priests and Magyars to separate the part of eastern Slovakia and join these territories to the Carpathian Ruthenia was growing steadily. It's worth noting that it was the defense of the national education system that became its dominant element. Regarding this situation, the Slovak authorities used to report that "ill-informed and illiterate citizens reject Slovak schools and demand Ruthenian ones instead, although they cannot speak Ruthe- nian"(NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 826, kart. 282).

Taking such background into account, the Prague government was alarmed by the aggravation of Slovak-Ruthenian/Ukrainian relations. On January 12, 1922 J. Necas, an secretariat official of the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, wrote a report regarding the situation mentioning "the sharp and disappointed tone of the Ruthenian People's Council in Presov was caused mainly by tactless actions of the Slovak authorities. Instead of using softer methods and meeting the needs of the Ruthenians in the Saris, Zemplin, and Spis counties, Slovaks are trying to Slovakize the entire population quickly and by radical means. With their harsh actions Slovaks achieve the completely opposite results, thus triggering the raising of the Ruthenian question in eastern Slovakia" (Шевченко 2011, с. 4-8).

In this situation, on January 18, 1922, the Ruthenian national centre sent the Czechoslovak authorities another "Memorandum of Ruthenians in Slovakia today". They officially required the creation of a Russian grammar school with the Russian language as the language of instruction and Russian professors. However, this document was ignored by the authorities the same way as the previous appeals (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 73, s. 47).

The central government behaved this way because of the circulating idea of Czechoslovakism and creation of one nation. Having received the formal consent from the Czechs to resolve the issues of national minorities, Slovaks got their carte blanche to pursue their own ethnopolitics in Slovakia. In his work "Liberated Slovakia" S. Klima, the Czech historian, wrote, "Are the Czechs and Slovaks one nation? Before the coup, no one doubted it". The researcher tried to justify this kind of unity "from Hus to Stur" (Klima 1926, s. 5).

One of the issues that intensified the agitation movement among the Ruthenians/Ukrainians in Eastern Slovakia was the absence of a bishop at the head of the Presov diocese. In February, 1922, Ruthenians from Lukov, Hutka, Litmanova, Kruzlov, Krive, Knze, Polianka, Venice, Boglarka, Niklov, Folvark (today Stranany), Krompachy of the Stara Lubovna district, Vel'ky Lipnfk and other villages of the Bardejov district appealed to the Czechoslovak government, and they asked the authorities to appoint the bishop of Presov from among three local candidates: Rev. M. Semetkovsky from Stel- bach, Dr. M. Beskyd, Rev. J. Kiziak from Presov. This appeal was supported by local branches of the Czechoslovak People's Democratic, Social Democratic and Republican parties in Presov (SNA, f. MPS, kart.71).

On April 11, 1922, the Saris county governor sent his report concerning the Ruthenian Memorandum to the Slovak Ministry, and stated there that in Svidnicka during the people's mass council, "[Ruthenians] were speaking out against the Slovaks, according to gendarmes". "The Ruthenian Party wants to consider every Greek Catholic a Ruthenian, [even if] they [every Greek Catholic] do not speak Ruthenian on the everyday basis but demand volatilely Ruthenian education in schools and change the names on school buildings" (SNA, f. MPS, kart. 467).

Holding congresses became one of the components of the agitation movement. On July 2, 1922, a congress of Ruthenians/Ukrainians with 3,000 participants took place in Presov. They listed down the demands to be met for the Western Ruthenian parishes to join the autonomous Carpathian Ru- thenia: the introduction of the Ruthenian written language in schools and local governments, the right of local residents to hold offices on the_ civil service, the imminent implementation of a land reform (Mezilaborecke schromazden Rusinu Cas 1922). On July 9, the consequent congress took place in Bardejov. On July 11, another congress was held in Mezilaborce (Lidove noviny 1922).

The Czech correspondent E. Bohun noted that "all the congress in Presov and its whole character were anti-state, but it was primarily anti-Slovak. The demands [included] for the borders of the Carpathian Ruthenia to go up to Poprad, [to stop] the Slovakization of the population carried out by Slovak teachers" (Bohun 1922).

At the same time, the local Greek Catholic population in some communities of the region was quite politically radicalized. Thus, in 1922 Rev. Karpati from Klembark (now Klenov) of the Presov district advocated the introduction of the Ruthenian language in schools and "that Klembark [should be] a part of the Carpathian Ruthenia" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 695).

On August 20, 1922, the Stanca community of the Secovce district organized a public gathering where they agitated for the Russification of Greek Catholic schools (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 684).

The agitation for Ruthenian education waxed and waned. However, since 1923, the agitation movement among the Ruthenians/Ukrainians of Eastern Slovakia started to decline. This tendency was highlighted in the materials on agitation presented to the Ministry of Education and Public Education on July 28, 1923, by the Presidium of the School of Education and Public Education in Bratislava. They submitted a new report and remarked on the significant weakening of the agitation movement (NACR, f. PMR, inv.c.826, kart.282).

In his report to the county governor of the Liptovsky Mikulas district on August 6, 1923, the Slovak official pointed out that "the agile movement [is seen] in the villages of the Stara Lubovna District and Levoca districts, and some Rusyns head it; that movement is also widespread among the Slovak population of the Ruthenian religion", this movement took place in the "state-building sense". Its only leader was the deputy chairman pf the Kosice court board K. Macik, "who spends his annual vacation in the village of Kamionka" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 17, sign. 6960, s. 712).

On January 24, 1924, the Kosice County Council warned that "the agitation of Greek Catholic priests of the Ruthenian origin would ultimately increase the numbers of Ruthenian officials in public, governmental life and in schools with the political aim of expanding the borders of the Carpathian Ruthenia" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 662).

On February 12, 1924, the head of the Svidnik district reported that "even with state support, Slovak politics of today would have already supported Slovakism, as it would have been against the Carpathian Ruthenia and against the local anarchic situation caused by Orthodoxy" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 685).

On February 22, 1924, the head of the Secovce district reported that "in the Greek Catholics communities there is a widespread opinion among the population that the entire former Zemplin parish will belong to the Carpathian Ruthenia" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 684).

Surprisingly, it was the occasional anti-national orientation of some leaders of the Ruthenian movement that created one of the significant obstacles to Ruthenian national identification. That caused an insurmountable problem for the local population as they believed that the national orientation of the Greek Catholic clergy in Eastern Slovakia was clearly pro-Hungarian. One can find multiple proves of th[s state of affairs among the archival materials. For instance, priest J. Dobriansky from Vranovske Cemerne "pretends to be a Ruthenian, but [he] does not speak Russian and uses Hungarian in his everyday life" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 675).

Comparing to 1921, the intensity of agitation in 1924 decreased significantly. However, Slovak official reports still contained information that M. Beskyd in Lukov, K. Rokytsky in Petrova, S. Hoydych in Cigel'ka, S. Beskyd in Snakov, and J. Hojdic in Kruzlov "continued agitating for the introduction of the Ruthenian language in schools in the Slovak villages where many Greek Catholics live, and then [the agitation continues] in the perspective that the Greek Catholic population should be leaning towards the idea of those villages to belong to the Carpathian Ruthenia, but in no case to Hungary" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 686). As for the beginning of 1924 in the Bardejov district "in schools they teach in Slovak" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 29, sign. 1074, s. 686).

On April 22, 1924, Dr. Bujnak from the Council Presidium of the Ministry of Schooling and Public Education in Bratislava presented his report on the agitation of Greek Catholic priests in Eastern Slovakia. The prefect of the Kosice County (district) reported that "under the Zatkovich's governorship the agitation of Greek Catholic priests advocating the application of the Russian view of the Ruthenian people in public administrative life and in schools for the political purpose of expanding the borders of the CR (Carpathian Ruthenia) at the expense Slovakia flourished. After his resignation, the level of agitation lowered and it was continued in secret only by those Greek Catholic priests who had been ardent proponents of the Russian approach to the Ruthenian national idea even before Zatkovich". Those priests included S. Rokitsky and Rev. Dobriansky from the Humenne district, M. Beskyd from Lukov, K. Rokytsky from Petrova, S. Hojdic from Cigel'ka, S. Beskyd from Snakov, J. Hojdic from Kruzlov of the Bardejov county, Karpati from Klembark (now Klenov) of the Presov district, F. Simsa from Kolbasa of the Secovce district and T Bogdani from Starina of the Snina district". In political terms the vast majority of the Greek Catholic clergy behaved loyally, or at least neutrally, at the time. "The factors contributing to this turn in the situation werejhe decline of Zatkovich's personal influence and active opposition to the Orthodox agitation (NACR, f. PMR, inv. c. 826, kart. 282).

One of the leaders of the Greek Catholic clergy of the Presov district Rev. T Rojkovic appealed to the Kosice County Governor on June 9, 1924. He claimed that even after finding out the results of the census the school inspectorate forbade Ruthenian as a language of instruction in the Ruthenian schools of the "officially recognized" Ruthenian villages. The Bardejov School Inspectorate stated all its schools relied on the Slovak language as the language of instruction (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 44, sign. 6901, s. 62).

Reacting to this situation, Rev. T Rojkovic put forward five demands: first of all the school inspectors "should not obstruct the teaching process, especially administratively, in the schools of Ruthenian villages ... [where they are] teaching children in Ruthenian as a "language of instruction", provided that starting from the third grade the Slovak language is taught [there] three times a week (3 lessons) as a compulsory subject"; another demand was to submit "a new authentic [real] list of Ruthenian schools with "the Ruthenian language of instruction"; also, Ruthenian state inspectors were to be appointed in the Ruthenian schools in the districts of Presov, Bardejov, Stropkov, Medzi- laborce, and Michalovce; there should be established city schools in Medzilaborce an Presov, parallel classes in Bardejov and Michalovce, an utraquist (bilingual) school in Michalovce; schools that had been destroyed during the war had to be restored (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 44, sign. 6901, s. 62-63).

However, it was not infrequent the local Czechoslovak officials to arbitrarily ban the teaching of the Ruthenian language as a subject in schools of the region. This caused a new surge in the agitation activity among the Greek Catholic clergy and teachers. For instance, on October 3, 1924, the Deputy Apostolic Administrator in Presov, Fr. Rev. D. Rusnak appealed to the local prefect regarding the complaints of the teachers of the Bardejov district against the local school inspector Kohany (SAK, f. KZ, kart.408, sign.6/129, s.91-92).

On March 17, 1925, as a member of the county council and a priest from Lucina T Rojkovic appealed to the Kosice county with a proposal that if Ruthenians comprised more than 20% of the communities, "it was allowed to use seals, various inscriptions in Ruthenian as well, with the Ruthenian text and letters". He also demanded that this principle would apply to notaries and villages. He stated that "the local Ruthenian people want and must have their national rights, no more and no less than of other nationalities, and they make sure that those rights do not remain only on paper, but are effectively recognized everywhere by every citizen, especially by the administration and officials" (SAK, f. KZ, kart.71, sign.2733, s.412).

At the same time, Rev. T. Rojkovic also sought permission to introduce the Ruthenian language in public schools. In particular, "in all schools where the Ruthenian population holds the majority, so that Ruthenian became the language of instruction. "Another demand was "[for] the Ruthenian language to be the language of instruction in schools where the population was perceived as Ruthenian due to miscalculation" and "children learned Ruthenian for five hours a week in all the Greek Catholic schools of the local parish - without exception".

A significant event in the life of Ruthenians/Ukrainians in Eastern Slovakia was the holding of a national congress. On August 17, 1925, there was held a meeting was to discuss the preparation to the Congress Council. It aimed at political consolidation of all strata of Ruthenians/Ukrainians in the region.

On September 7, 1925, the Ruthenian People's Congress took place in Presov. 150 delegates and 120 guests attended it. The topics discussed during this event included issues of social and economic needs of the Ruthenian people, public education, and political situation in the region (Venkov 1925).

The leading figures of the Presov region delivered their speeches and took part in the discussion concerning important issues of life of local Ruthenians/Ukrainians. In particular, Rev. T Rojkovic, a participant of the congress, stressed that "we will not prove anything staying in the opposition, while following the instructions of our American brothers and staying under the rule of the current governor Beskid until the unification of all the Ruthenian people we agreed to create the Carpathian-Ruthe- nian Agrarian Party and join the agrarian party ... as a result we did not reach the aim and remained fragmented" (SAK, f. KZ, kart.91, sign.9698, s.609-610). In his turn, A. Tarabchak from Presov emphasized in his speech that "after joining the agrarian party, we faced chaos coming in between us. Therefore, we had to restructure our organizations so that we could fight for our existence. When we wanted to act on the behalf of the agrarian party we were told that no one had heard of Ruthe- nians and the Ministry of the Slovak Administration informed us that in a decade there would be no Ruthenians at all" (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 91, sign. 9698, s. 610).

The congress elected a 12-member council for the election work. It included priests Dr. N. Beskid from Legnava and I. Hanat from Certizne, A. Tarabchak from Presov, Deputy Chairman of the Judicial Chamber in Kosice Dr. K. Macik, farmers J. Los from Carne, J. Babjak from Jurkova Vol'a, A. Vanuga from N. Svidnik, I. Kruchik from Ruska Kruchova, A. Hancin from Stanca, teachers P. Gyongyor from Presov and S. Kozak from Ruska Nova Ves, P. Tugrynska from Presov (SAK, f. KZ, kart.91, sign. 9698, s. 614).

The congress adopted the resolution according to which in political terms, "all Ruthenians living in Slovakia represent a single indivisible Ruthenianness. "As for the public education, it concerned the issue of the public schools network expansion on the Slovakian territory were the Ruthenian population lived, the problem of this network support, the questions of hiring Ruthenian teachers for the Ruthenian schools and teaching children in the Ruthenian language, as well as the issues of Ruthenian inspectors appointment, city schools establishment, opening of a secondary economic school and a Ruthenian grammar school gymnasium in Presov, providing equal rights for the teachers of Greek Catholic schools as well as public schools (SAK, f. KZ, kart. 91, sign. 9698, s. 616-617).

In general, Ruthenians/Ukrainians congresses organized both in the Carpathian Ruthenia and in Eastern Slovakia (in Presov in 1922 and 1925, in Mukachevo in 1923 and 1925) were held under the slogans of national unification. However, the Czechoslovak press denounced these attempts at ethnopolitical consolidation as "an expression of political primitivism".

In conclusion, the agitation movement among Ruthenians/Ukrainians in Eastern Slovakia in the first half of the 1920s was a natural consequence of the Slovak domestic policy and its practical idea of the rapid assimilation of national minorities living in the region. Generally, it was the Greek Catholic clergy that led the agitation movement in the region. However, due to individual level of their political and national awareness, not all the local Uniate clergy understood and accepted the ideas retransmitted from the Carpathian Ruthenia and the Presov Diocese. Taking it into consideration, it was quite natural for the agitation movement in Eastern Slovakia to develop in two main directions: advocating the process of joining the Carpathian Ruthenia and fighting for the introduction of national schools and the respective language of instruction.

Список джерел та літератури

1. Archiv Kancelare prezidenta republiky v Prahe, fond KPR - protokol PR (Podkarpatska Rus), (1919) 19211939, (AKPR, f. PR) inv. c. 651, Prezidium ministerstva vnitra - drkevm hodnostari - biskupstvi na Slovensku - recko-katolicka eparchie mukacevska v Uzhorode - recko-katolicky biskup Papp 1921-1925, kart. 760, sign. 7. BOHUN, E., 1922, Poznamky k rusinskemu sjazdu, 26 novembra.

2. KLfMA, S., 1926, Osvobodene Slovensko. Praha. 239 s.

3. Kol'ko Rusinov je na Slovensku. 1922. Slovensky Dennik, 31.05.

4. Mezilaborecke schromazdem. 1922. RusinO Cas, 15.07.

5. Narodm Archiv, fond Predsednictvo ministerske rady, 1918-1945 (NACR, f. PMR), inv. c. 743.

6. Narodm Archiv, fond Predsednictvo ministerske rady, 1918-1945 (NACR, f. PMR), inv. c. 826, kart.282. Pozadavky "ruske" narodm strany. 122. Lidove noviny, 12.07 Rusky narodm kongres v Presove1925. Venkov, 17.9.

7. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart.52.

8. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart.71.

9. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 73.

10. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 467.

11. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 17, sign. 6960.

12. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 29, sign. 1074.

13. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 408, sign. 6/129, s. 91-92. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 44, sign. 6901.

14. Statny archw v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 71, sign. 2733.

15. Statny archw v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 91, sign. 9698.

16. КРАВЧУК, О., 2006, Словаччина в національній політиці Праги (1918-1929 рр.) Наукові записки Вінницького державного педагогічного університету імені М. Коцюбинського. Серія: Історія. Вип. 10. 286-293.

17. КРАВЧУК, О., 2007, Національна політика Чехословацької республіки. 1918-1929 рр. Автореф. дис. ... канд. іст. наук. Київ.

18. ШЕВЧЕНКО, К., 2011, Русинское национальное меньшинство в Словакии: этнокультурное и политическое развитие в 1920-х гг. Российские и славянские исследования. Вып. 6. 9-19.

19. Archiv Kancelare prezidenta republiky v Prahe, fond KPR - protokol PR (Podkarpatska Rus), (1919) 19211939, (AKPR, f. PR) inv. c. 651, Prezidium ministerstva vnitra - drkevm hodnostari - biskupstvi na Slovensku - recko-katolicka eparchie mukacevska v Uzhorode - recko-katolicky biskup Papp 1921-1925, kart. 760, sign. 7. BOHUN, E., 1922, Poznamky k rusinskemu sjazdu, 26 novembra.

20. KLfMA, S. 1926. Osvobodene Slovensko. Praha. 239 s.

21. Kol'ko Rusinov je na Slovensku. 1922. Slovensky Dennik, 31.05.

22. KRAVCHUK, O., 2006, Slovachchyna v natsionalnii politytsi Prahy (1918-1929 rr.) [Slovakia in the national policy of Prague], Naukovi zapysky Vinnytskoho derzhavnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni M. Kotsiu- bynskoho. Seriia: Istoriia, vyp. 10, s. 286-293.

23. KRAVCHUK, O., 2007, Natsionalna polityka Chekhoslovatskoi respubliky [National policy of the Czechoslovak Republic]. 1918-1929 rr. Avtoref. dys. kand. ist. nauk: spets. 07.00.02 - vsesvitnia istoriia. Kyiv. 21 s. Mezilaborecke schromazdem. 1922. RusinO Cas, 15.07.

24. Narodm Archiv, fond Predsednictvo ministerske rady, 1918-1945 (NACR, f. PMR), inv. c. 743.

25. Narodm Archiv, fond Predsednictvo ministerske rady, 1918-1945 (NACR, f. PMR), inv. c. 826, kart. 282. Pozadavky "ruske" narodm strany. 122. Lidove noviny, 12.07.

26. Rusky narodm kongres v Presove 1925. Venkov, 17.9.

27. SHEVCHENKO, K.,2011, Rusynskoe natsyonalnoe menshynstvo v Slovakyy: etnokulturnoe y polytycheskoe razvytye v 1920-kh hh [Ruthenian National Minority in Slovakia: Ethnocultural and Political Development in the 1920s.]. Rossyiskye y slavianskye yssledovanyia. Vyp. 6. 9-19.

28. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 52.

29. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 71.

30. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 73.

31. Slovensky narodny archiv, fond Minister Ceskoslovenskej republiky s plnou mocou pre spravu Slovenska (1918-1927) (SNA, f. MPS), kart. 467.

32. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 17, sign. 6960.

33. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 29, sign. 1074.

34. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 408, sign. 6/129, s.91-92.

35. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 44, sign. 6901.

36. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 71, sign. 2733.

37. Statny archiv v Kosiciach, fond Kosicka Zupa, 1923-1927 (1928) (SAK, f. KZ), kart. 91, sign. 9698.

Размещено на Allbest.ru