Europe was once the Europe of regions. A yeoman or a burgher, occupying the middle level of the social pyramid, had contact with the local or regional administration and not with that of the State. The economic, cultural and political organisations of a certain region were performed not by the state or imperial administration but by the local one, which thus became a vassal of the higher institutions of the state's sovereignty. The imperial and royal power was considered an institution far too remote (and somewhat unattainable). The life of the majority of the people was governed by a provincial lord, bishop or city council.
The regional institutions of the Supreme Power also had, though limited, sovereignty. The development of different regions, provinces and counties was, therefore, shaped by their particular traditions. Some of them eventually attained independence; by stepping out of the frame of the feudal state, they became completely sovereign, independent states recognised by international jurisdiction. (Thus were Belgium and the Netherlands established.) But most of them remained within the frame of greater and more extensive political units which subsequently turned into sovereign states. In some states during their later development (especially those established in the second half of the nineteenth century, such as Germany and Italy) certain regions sustained their economic and cultural integrity and administrative autonomy.
The different regions took specific roles within the State, for example, before the First World War and in the time of the Weimar Republic the various German provinces (Landes) obtained considerable autonomy, which they still preserve as members of the Bundesrepublik. Similarly, there are distinct economic and political regions in Great Britain (the historical countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), in Austria (the previous hereditary provinces), in Italy (the provinces) and in the newly decentralised Spain (Catalonia, Basc Provinces, Andalucia), even in France wherein despite the traditionally strong central power, more and more important governmental issues are treated by the local governments of the traditional provinces. It is a generally known fact that in Switzerland the principle of regional autonomy is wide-spread, that is, the smaller regions, the so-called cantons (equalling the counties and districts in Hungary) arrange their internal affairs through powerful local governments.
In historical Hungary the transformation of regional organisations to more comprehensive state structures could not really take root. During the Middle Ages there was plenty scope for regional development in the Hungarian Kingdom, accordingly, numerous administratively, economically and culturally separate units got established within the feudal society. Besides the countries and provinces joining or surrendering to the Hungarian Kingdom later on (like Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia) and the Banat defending the southern frontier of the country; Transylvania as well as the Temesi Bánság, encompassed by the rivers Danube, Tisza and Maros, and temporally even the Highlands, situated in the north-western and north-eastern parts of the Kingdom, established regional governments, which did not eventually give an impetus to the disintegration of the country, like in the case of some Western European countries. This development – along with the Hungarian state and the Central European Empire – was halted by the Ottoman invasion. Nevertheless, the regional independence of Transylvania was stimulated by the Ottoman invasion and Transylvania as a principality attained sovereignty at that time. During the reign of Imre Thököly and under the supremacy of the Ottoman Porte, Upper Hungary also reached a fairly uncertain statehood, though not recognised by the international jurisdiction.
Following the re-establishment of the regional unity of the historical country in the eighteenth century, and especially after the Compromise of 1867, the different Hungarian regions were characterised by economic and cultural rather than political unity. Furthermore, prior to the First World War (formed on the model of the French constitutional theory and practical etatism) a strongly centralised administration governed the country, which reinforced the central status of Budapest, instead of maintaining the regional differences and local governments, and consequently supporting Hungarians living in regions, such as Transylvania and Upper Hungary, endangered by the aspirations of ethnic groups.
Similarly to the establishment of nations, national cultures and literature were shaped by the approchement and unification of various regional cultures. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there were, however, endeavours to renew the previous regional traditions; as if, over against the forceful centralising policy (and accordingly, the attempt to unify the nation). The different historical and cultural units, the colourfully varied ethnic groups and cultural regions of diverse character gained more political awareness.
During the first four decades of the twentieth century the school of history of ideas brought about approaches different from those of positivism, which dominated the second half of the nineteenth century, moreover it considerably promoted the recognition of regional literature. The theory of regional literature formulated by two German scholars, August Sauer and Josef Nadler, was widely debated and discussed. On the basis of historical regions, they investigated the variants of national literature, thence distinguished Prussian, Saxon, Svabian, Turingian, Silesian, Sudetan and other traditions whithin German literature.
The cultivation of local literary traditions and the preservation of literary regionalism were greatly reinforced by intellectual movements, such as the German Heimatdichtung and the French régionalisme. Influenced by conservative ideas, the former movement aimed at depicting the German rural life and expressing the "intact" rural spirit; thus opposing the "unifying tendencies" of urban literature. While presenting the traditions of certain French regions or French communities outside France, the French regionalists described rural life and the traditional "folk spirit". Thus the Swiss Charles Ferdinand Ramuz and the Canadian French Louis Hémon (from Quebec) became acknowledged writers of regionalism.
In Hungary the institutions and traditions of regional decentralisation, which were so vigorous and effective in the western and southern parts of the Continent, were far less advanced. Nevertheless, there were some culturally distinct regions within the territory of historical Hungary as well, although, as opposed to German literature, these distinctive features were culturally not so determining. Still, Transdanubian, Upper Hungarian and Transylvanian literature and that of the Great Plain markedly differ from each other. These diverse regional traditions and cultural variants appeared in literature, art and "common culture" which manifested itself in everyday life, in the way of thinking and taste, that is, in the mentality of more educated social groups.
It refers particularly to Transylvanian literature. Hungarian society in Transylvania had discernible cultural traditions and an identity of its own. It got expressed in the culture of the independent Transylvanian Principality as well as in the activity of early "transylvanists" – like Péter Apor and Mihály Apáczai Csere–, who emphasised the importance of maintanining specific Transylvanian traditions and the political and cultural identity of the region, even after the integration of Transylvania into the Habsburg Empire. Later on Miklós Jósika, Zsigmond Kemény and other writers, publicists and politicians emphasised that Transylvania should follow its own intellectual and political traditions; this view prevailed throughout the nineteenth century, and even in the period following the Union Pact of the Compromise of 1867.
At the turn of the century, tendencies towards the decentralisation of culture strengthened, the overwhelming cultural role of Budapest slightly diminished, and consequently the traditional provincial centres of culture, such as Cluj [Kolozsvár, Klausenburg], Tîrgu-Mures [Marosvásárhely, Neumarkt], Bratislava [Pozsony, Pressburg], Kosice [Kassa, Kaschau], Debrecen, Kecskemét, Gyôr [Raab], Sopron [Ödenburg] acquired more influential position. New cultural centres appeared, like the rising bourgeois town Oradea [Nagyvárad, Grosswardien], which soon provided a focal point for modern Hungarian literary culture. At that time cultural decentralisation was promoted by historical processes, namely, the regional centres of national culture emerged in bourgeois provincial towns.
As a result of previous traditions and the above mentioned decentralising tendencies, the most significant cultural regions – Transylvania and Upper Hungary – were able to preserve their own culture and identity, even in the troublesome situation following the Trianon Pact. Various Hungarian cultures developing amidst great political and financial difficulties in the successive states represented their regional traditions and minority experiences, and they were bearers of different intellectual movements. Though separated politically from the motherland, they did not want to get isolated from its culture, on the contrary, they accomplished their responsible tasks with the conviction that the minority and ethnic culture of Hungarians living outside Hungary (also in emigration after 1945) was integral part of the common Hungarian heritage. This view was nicely worded in Gyula Illyés' remarkable poem, 'homeland on high". When discussing the inner structure and history of Hungarian culture and literature, the regional variants should also be taken into consideration. Since most Hungarian cultural regions are situated outside Hungary, Transylvania, Upper Hungary, Ruthenia, Banat and Voivodina are not merely cultural centres but home of many Hungarians separated from their mother country. The literary productions of these different regions can get integrated into the national culture as valuable pieces, only if the couleur locale is completed with more comprehensive and universal values; nevertheless, the culturally and literary diverse regions display values in themselves: they authenticate and enrich the artistic production.
While pondering how the unity of the national culture could be re-established, we have to take into consideration the more extensive cultural and literary regions (Transylvania, Upper Hungary, Voivodina, Transdanubia) and the smaller ones (the Székely Region, Kalotaszeg, Bánát, Ruthenia and the Balaton region). Cultural regions cannot be circumscribed by administrative borders, since they connect people residing on both sides of the border, and link together various nationalities, ethnic groups and cultures of the region.
However, this approach offers new aspects to the definition of a region, since the bigger and the smaller regional units determined by different historical, economic and cultural traditions and interests are necessarily tied up to a certain country or language; but they can enclose various nationalities, languages and cultures.
Banat, for example, is a rather specific, historically developed cultural region, home of several ethnic groups and cultures (Hungarian, German, Romanian, Serbian). In contrast to the neighbouring Romanian and Serbian regions, it is relatively advanced economically and culturally, which made possible that the different nationalities living within the region tolerated each other. The democratic traditions of the region were based exactly on this tolerance, which played a crucial role in preparing the political changes in 1989 and in the recent political life of Romania, for Timisoara [Temesvár, Temeschwar] displayed far greater tolerance toward people speaking and thinking otherwise.
Similarly, the historical region – whose reference points would be Kosice [Kassa, Kaschau], Rosnava [Rozsnyó, Rosensau], Miskolc, Tokaj, Sárospatak, Sátoraljaújhely, Ungorod [Ungvár], Munkaèevo [Munkács] and Beregovo [Beregszász] – is an interesting example of regional traditions. This region designates not simply a traditionally Hungarian historical and cultural region, but it is a fertile ground for cultural interactions between Hungarians and Slovaks and to a lesser extent between Hungarians and Germans as well as Rusins, occasionally even cultural workshops were created here. In the Tisza-Carpathian region there have recently been attempts to renew the regional identity and the old traditions. Through economic interdependence and renewal of commercial relations, solidarity and a common sphere of interest could be achieved in the regions, thus strengthening cultural interrelation and decreasing the previous tensions between the different ethnic groups, which otherwise were raised artificially. Likewise, the forcefully broken relations between Hungarians living on both sides of the border in three different countries could also be re-established.
The Székely Region could be defined as a similar economic, historical and cultural region which regarding its ethnicity markedly differs from the neighbouring Romanian regions. The Partium region, namely, the territory designated by Satu Mare [Szatmárnémeti, Sathmar], Carei [Nagykároly, Karol] and Zalãu [Zilah, Waltenberg] as well as the middle eastern part of the Great Plain (situated on both sides of the Hungarian-Romanian border and encompassing the historical Bihar county which extended from Debrecen to Oradea [Nagyvárad, Grosswardein]) could also be noted as such regions where the economic and cultural traditions were unified. Transdanubia could also be onsidered as a historical region. In the western part of present Slovakia designated by Bratislava [Pozsony, Pressburg], Trnava [Nagyszombat, Tyrnau], Nitra [Nyitra, Neuter] and Komárno [Komárom, Komorn] special traditions have developed as a result of the coexistence of Hungarians and Slovaks. In this case the proximity of Vienna is also influential, for it links the region to western civilisation.
In fact, the whole Carpathian basin, moreover, Central Europe as whole and the Danubian region consist of economically, historically and culturally distinct "sub regions". Since similar "regional kinship" can be noticed between the northern and southern Tyrolian region (which previously formed an administrative unit) or in the cases of the eastern Polish or western Ukrainian regions. In the past these "sub regions" in the Carpathian basin had very strong and substantial relations to every direction: to the south east they had connections with the historical Romanian principalities, to the east with Ukraine and Russia, to the north with the Polish and Baltic regions, to the west with the previous Austrian provinces, Bavaria, Saxony and Bohemia, to the south with Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and even with the northern Italian regions, namely, with Venice and Lombardy. The Danubian region, encompassed by the Carpathians, was thus incorporated in the Central European and the more extensive European "mosaic", while preserving its own specific "mosaic".
The fruitful co-operation of Central European regions and those situated in the Carpathian basin was halted by the mostly forced disintegration of the traditional political unity (though established not always without contradictions) and by the frequent reorganisations of the political borders. Often hurtfully one-sided, the constructors of such political maps neglected significant ethnic, historical, economic and geopolitical factors. Especially, the extreme nationalist etatism, developing during the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, could be blamed for disregarding the common interests of traditional economic and cultural co-operation, hence eventually subordinating everything to the state, furthermore, to the voluntarist ideology of "national state", which can be accomplished in the Central European region only by political myths and sometimes completely inhuman means. (Like in the totalitarian states of the twentieth century, here also the primacy of ideology was reinforced over against economics, culture and everyday life.)
As the harmful consequences of the Central European disintegration and the dangers of domineering etatism became more and more obivous, the idea of reviving the regional traditions arose already in the 1920s. It was particularly typical of cultures which suffered most of the disintegration of the natural regional units as well as of the policy against minorities, which characterised the "national state" strategy and the etatist social policy of the countries formed after the Trianon Pact. Here, primarily Transylvania should be noted, wherein the real possibilities of the renewal of regional traditions and cultures were taken into consideration in different discussions (in which also the transylvanist idea got formulated in the 1920s).
Providing a program for Transylvanian political thinking, in his writings Aladár Kuncz emphasised two reference points which were beyond the given framework of the state, that is the ideals of European and regional continuity. These offer further guidelines for Transylvanian literature and culture. In his study, entitled Tíz év [Ten years] and published in 1928, he pointed out: "As opposed to these extremes, mainly forced and extensive units, the various popular and cultural organisations obviously find their own identity, and by the renewal of their own peculiarities, they refreshingly promote European culture." Aladár Kuncz followed with great curiosity the development of different regional and national literature all over Europe; and being the editor of the journal Erdélyi Helikon [Transylvanian Helikon], he continuously made a presentation about them. He considered these regional and national literature as workshops which had to advocate the intellectual unity and universal human ideal of Europe, realised in the future. As he wrote in his confessional essay in 1929, entitled Erdély az én hazám [Transylvania is my home], "Europe can reach the stage of fruitful, progressive and highly educated political co-operation only through regionalism which can articulate itself freely. First of all, the artificial unity is to be broken into small pieces, thence by a new and more comprehensive intellectual movement a genuine unity could be created out of them."
Those cultural regions, mentioned by Aladár Kuncz, were indeed the natural focal points (and workshops) of greater communities. The recent developments in Europe point forward the formation and re-establishment of such regions. Through the elimination of practical etatism, which caused so much destruction and suffering in the twentieth century, they want to deconstruct the present structures of economic, political and intellectual life – almost exclusively subordinated to the ordering principle and power of the omnipotent state. In the shadow of the coming millennium, a new approach is developing in European thinking, namely, the recognition of the fact that the more effective functioning of societies and the less problematic coexistence of human communities can be assured by two structures; one is smaller and the other is greater than the structure determined by a state. On the one hand, regional organisation would provide more scope for local economic and cultural traditions and possibilities. On the other hand, European integration equalises the immense (and often depressing) economic differences between regions, hereby diminishing ethnic tensions developed in the course of history.
In case the regional traditions and organisations are strengthened, individuals and communities may be less burdened with ethnopolitical conflicts; and a more independent view could charaterise cultural life. This approach is derived from the ideal of the historical community of European nations as well as from the actual unification of Europe. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, state structures became far too powerful (and exclusive), consequently the overpowering state administration suppressed society, traditional communities, particularly in Central Europe, hence dangerously limiting spontaneous processes within economic and cultural life. It would be extremely important to restrict the supremacy, exclusive sovereignty and, above all, the unbounded etatist tendencies of the state.
The European heritage was shaped not so much by competing states, but by the colourful mosaic of tradition and intellectuality as well as the wealth of historical and cultural regions. Europe of regions? Europe is said to be the union of different states, countries, nations and cultures. It may as well be home of diverse traditional cultural regions. By preserving the historical character developed throughout many centuries, the European community could bequeath to posterity its most worthy treasure – the traditional spirit of its culture.