Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
The endless and frequently meaningless disputes involving the contribution of one or another nationality group to the maintenance or dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy have obscured the essential question: was the multinational empire viable? Different answers have been provided, usually on the basis of the historian's individual national prejudices, whether Hungarian, Yugoslav, Polish, Ruthenian, Italian, or Rumanian. The ranks of the disputants have been swelled by “volunteers” of non-East European origin ever ready to champion, on sentimental or ideological rather than historical grounds, whatever causes may have been appealing at a given time.
1 Detailed bibliographical references on the Rumanian problem in Transylvania, the Banat, Crişana, and Maramureş can be found in Veress, Andrei, Bibliografia română-ungară [Rumanian-Hungarian Bibliography] (3 vols., Bucharest: Certea Românească, 1931–1935)Google Scholar; Crăciun, Ioachim, Bibliographie de la Transylvanie roumaine 1916–1936 (Cluj: Revue de Transylvanie, 1937)Google Scholar; and Daicoviciu, Constantin and Constantinescu, Miron, Brève histoire de la Transylvanie (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1965), pp. 427–435Google Scholar. No comparable surveys are available for Bukovina. However, a satisfactory bibliographic survey can be found in Prokopowitsch, Erich, Die rumänische Nationalbewegung in der Bukowina und der Dako-Romanismus (Graz: Böhlau, 1965), pp. 171–175.Google Scholar
2 The classic statement of both positions is in Horváth, Eugene, Transylvania and the History of the Roumanians (Budapest: Sárkány, 1935).Google Scholar
3 Although clearly a work à thèse, Daicoviciu, Constantin et al. , Din Istoria Transilvaniei [The History of Transylvania] (2nd ed., 2 vols., Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1961)Google Scholar, provides the best analysis of the contribution of the Rumanians to the stability of the Habsburg monarchy.
4 The text of the Supplex libellus Valachorum can be found in Prodan, David, Supplex libellus Valachorum (Cluj, 1948), pp. 243–273.Google Scholar
5 The most comprehensive Marxist interpretation is in Istoria Romîniei [The History of Rumania], Vol. III (Bucharest: Academia Republicii Populare Romîne, 1964), pp. 492–513Google Scholar. Consult also the excellent study by Hitchins, Keith, “Samuel Clain and the Rumanian Enlightenment in Transylvania,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 4 (12, 1964), pp. 660–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 On the nature and message of the “Şcoala Ardeleană” consult Maciu, Vasile et al. , Outline of Rumanian Historiography until the Beginning of the 20th Century (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1964), pp. 30–36Google Scholar. It is an original interpretation. See also Şcoala ardeleană [The Transylvanian School] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1959).Google Scholar
7 Compare Hitchins, , “Samuel Clain and the Rumanian Enlightenment in Transylvania,” pp. 660–675Google Scholar, with Maciu, , Outline of Rumanian Historiography, pp. 30–36Google Scholar. See also Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 278–297.Google Scholar
8 Popovici, D., La littérature roumaine à l'époque des lumières (Sibiu, 1945), pp. 109–116 and 448–475.Google Scholar
9 Most forcefully stated in Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I. pp. 296–297.Google Scholar
10 See also Bodea, Cornelia, “Preocupări economice şi culturale în literatura transilvană dintre anii 1786–1830” [Economic and Cultural Preoccupations in Transylvanian Literature between 1786 and 1830], Studii, Vol. IX, No. 6 (1956), pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
11 A well balanced and carefully documented account of these problems is in La Transylvanie (Bucharest: Académie roumaine, 1938), pp. 337–378.Google Scholar
12 The significance and influence of the conservative forces has been reassessed in recent years. A comprehensive summary of the latest findings and current interpretations can be found in Istoria Romîniei, Vol. IV (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1964), pp. 25–35.Google Scholar
13 Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, 318–350.Google Scholar
14 Cheresteşiu, Victor, A magyarországi román sajtó politikai vezéreszméi és munkája a szabadságharc elötti évtizedben [The Principal Political Ideas and the Activity of the Rumanian Press in Hungary in the Decade before the War for Independence] (Budapest, 1917), pp. 3–33Google Scholar; Cheresteşiu, Victor, “Luptătorul revoluţionar Eftimie Murgu” [The Revolutionary Eftimie Murgu], Studii, Vol. IX, No. 1 (1956), pp. 65–86Google Scholar; Iorga, Nicolae, Istoria românilor din Ardeal şi Ungaria [The History of the Rumanians of Transylvania and Hungary] (Bucharest: Gutenberg, 1915), pp. 136–148.Google Scholar
15 Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 340–349.Google Scholar
16 La Transylvanie, pp. 370–378.Google Scholar
17 The standard “nationalist” interpretation is by Moga, I., “Luttes des Roumains de Transylvanie pour l'émancipation nationale,” La Transylvanie, pp. 379–451Google Scholar. The standard Marxist interpretation is in Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvanici, Vol. II, pp. 1–132.Google Scholar
18 Bărnuţiu, Simion, Românii şi ungurii [The Rumanians and the Hungarians] (Cluj, 1924)Google Scholar. This work has valuable annotations by G. Bogdan-Duică. See also Dragomir, Silviu, Studii şi documente privitoare la revoluţia romînilor din Transilvania ín anii 1848–1849 [Studies and Documents concerning the Revolution of the Rumanians of Transylvania in 1848–1849] (4 vols., Cluj, 1944–1946)Google Scholar; and Bogdan-Duică, G., Viaţa şi ideile lui Simeon Bămuţiu [The Life and Ideas of Simeon Bărnuṭiu] (Bucharest, 1924).Google Scholar
19 Iancu, Avram's views are best expressed in his Raportul lui Avram Iancu [The Report of Avram Iancu] (Sibiu, 1884)Google Scholar. Dragomir, Silviu, Avram Iancu (Bucharest, 1924)Google Scholar, is still the most authoritative study of Iancu.
20 Dragomir, Silviu, Tratativele romîno-maghiare din vara anului 1849 [Rumanian-Magyar Negotiations in the Summer of 1849] (Cluj, 1947), pp. 1–35Google Scholar; Cheresteşiu, , “Luptătorul revoluţionar Eftimie Murgu,” pp. 65–86.Google Scholar
21 See the summary statement in Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 36–62Google Scholar. See also a similar statement on Bukovina, in Prokopowitsch, , Die rumänische Nationalbewegung in der Bukowina, pp. 39–45Google Scholar. In addition, see Lupaş, Ioan, Mitropolitul Andreiu Şaguna (Sibiu, 1911), pp. 48–67Google Scholar; and Popea, N., Memorialul arhiepiscopului şi metropolitului Andreiu baron de Şaguna [The Memorial of Archbishop and Metropolitan Andreiu Şaguna], Vol. I (Sibiu, 1889), pp. 248–249.Google Scholar
22 See the summary statement in Cheresteşiu, Victor, “Contribuţii la istoria mişcărilor ţărăneşti în Transilvania în anul revoluţionar 1848” [Contributions to the History of Peasant Movements in Transylvania in the Revolutionary Year 1848], Studii şi referate privind istoria Romîniei [Studies and Reports concerning the History of Rumania], Vol. II (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1954), pp. 1159–1199.Google Scholar
23 See Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 133–186Google Scholar; and Moga, , “Luttes des Roumains de Transylvanie pour l'émancipation nationale,” pp. 403–423Google Scholar. An interesting interpretation may also be found in Istoria Romîniei, Vol. IV, pp. 398–440.Google Scholar
24 Representative arguments may be found in Bodea, Cornelia C., “Lupta pentru unire a revoluţionarilor exilaţi de la 1848” [The Struggle for Union on the Part of the Exiled Revolutionaries of 1848], Studii privind Unirea Principatelor [Studies concerning the Union of the Principalities] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1960), pp. 129–133Google Scholar; and in Berindei, Dan and Curticăpeanu, Vasile, “Revoluţia de la 1848–1849” [The Revolution of 1848–1849], Studii, Vol. XV, No. 6 (1962), pp. 1592–1593.Google Scholar
25 Characteristic is Bariţiu, Gheorghe, Părţi alese din istoria Transilvaniei [Excerpts from the History of Transylvania], Vol. II (Sibiu, 1890), pp. 128–133 and 154–164Google Scholar. See also Hodoş, Enea, Din corespondenţa lui S. Bărnuţiu şi a contemporanilor săi [The Correspondence of S. Bărnuţiu and His Contemporaries] (Sibiu, 1944), pp. 8–45.Google Scholar
26 Moldovan, V., Dieta Ardealului din 1863–1864 [The Diet of Transylvania of 1863–1864] (Cluj, 1932).Google Scholar
27 For an excellent summary, see Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 135–164.Google Scholar
28 Ibid., p. 146.
29 See ibid., pp. 189–231, for a good summary. See also Vajda, Ludovic, “Despre situaţia economică şi social-politică a Transilvaniei în primii ani ai secolului al XX-lea” [The Economic and Socio-Political Situation in Transylvania in the First Years of the Twentieth Century], Studii şi referate privind istoria Romîniei, Vol. II (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1954), pp. 315–320Google Scholar; and Kovács, Iosif, “Date în legătură cu descompunerea tărănimii din Transilvania după desfiinţarea iobăgiei din anul 1848” [Information concerning the Decomposition of the Peasantry after the Abolition of Serfdom in 1848], Studii şi cercetări de istorie [Historical Studies and Researches], Academia R. P. R., Cluj, Vol. VIII, No. 1–4 (1957), pp. 244–251.Google Scholar
30 The classic and most explicit account is still Pacatean, T. V., Cartea de aur sau luptele politice ale Românilor sub Coroana Ungariei [The Golden Book, or the Political Struggles of the Rumanians under the Hungarian Crown], Vol. IV (Sibiu, 1906).Google Scholar
31 Iorga, , Istoria românilor din Ardeal şi Ungaria, Vol. II, pp. 221–225Google Scholar; Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 232–251.Google Scholar
32 On these points, consult Lupaş, Ioan, “Inceputurile şi epocale isterice ale ziaristicii româneşti-transilvane” [The Beginnings and the Historical Periods of Transylvanian-Rumanian Journalism], Studii istorice [Historical Studies], Vol. V (Sibiu-Cluj, 1945–1946), pp. 325–332Google Scholar; and Lupaş, Ioan, Contribuţiuni la istoria ziaristicei româneşti ardelene [Contributions to the History of Transylvanian Rumanian Journalism] (Sibiu, 1926), pp. 19–52.Google Scholar
33 The political program of the Rumanian National Party can be found in Brote, Eugen, Chestiunea română în Transilvania şi Ungaria [The Rumanian Question in Transylvania and Hungary] (Bucharest, 1895), pp. 208–209.Google Scholar
34 Daicoviciu, , Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 253–259.Google Scholar
35 See ibid., pp. 259–264, for a concise summary of contemporary Marxist interpretations. Characteristic of earlier interpretations is Moga, , “Luttes des Roumains de Transylvanie pour l'emancipation nationale,” pp. 441–451Google Scholar. See also Pâclişanu, Z., “Guvernele ungureşti şi mişcarea memorandistă a Românilor din Ardeal” [The Hungarian Governments and the Memorandum Movement of the Rumanians of Transylvania], Revista Fundaţiilor Regale, Vol. I (1934), pp. 343–347Google Scholar; Papp, I. P., Procesul Memorandului Românilor din Transilvania [The Memorandum Trial of the Rumanians of Transylvania] (2 vols., Cluj, 1932–1933)Google Scholar; Pascu, Stefan, Din răsunctul proccsului memorandist in masele populare [The Echo of the Memorandum Trial among the Popular Masses] (Sibiu, 1944)Google Scholar; and Danciu, M., “Din frămîntările maselor populare în timpul procesului memorandist” [The Unrest of the Popular Masses during the Memorandum Trial], Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai. Historia, Vol. IV, No. 1 (1959), pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
36 In addition to the references provided in note 35, see also Lungu, Traian and Iordache, Anastase, “Romînia la începutul secolului al XX-lea” [Rumania at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century], Studii, Vol. XV, No. 6 (1962), pp. 1639–1651.Google Scholar
37 The most detailed summary of contemporary views can be found in Daicoviciu, Constantin and Constantinescu, Miron, Destrămarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900–1918 [The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1964), pp. 93–189Google Scholar. A summary of pre-Marxist positions may be found in Lupaş, Ioan, “La désagrégation de la monarchie austro-hongroise et la libération de la Transylvanie,” La, Transylvanie, pp. 453–468.Google Scholar
38 Daicoviciu, and Constantinescu, , Destrămarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900–1918, pp. 11–92 and 231–262.Google Scholar
39 Clopoţel, I., Revoluţia din 1918 şi Unirca Ardealului cu România [The Revolution of 1918 and the Union of Transylvania with Rumania] (Cluj, 1926)Google Scholar; Daicoviciu, and Constantinescu, , Destrămarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900–1018, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar
40 Daicoviciu, and Constantinescu, , Destrămarea Monarhiei Austro-Un-gare 1900–1918, pp. 105–116 and 131–136Google Scholar; Lungu, and Iordache, , “Romînia la începutul secolului al XX-lea,” p. 1649, n. 5.Google Scholar
41 A lucid summary will be found in Prokopowitsch, , Die rumänische Nationalbewegung in der Bukowina, pp. 130–158.Google Scholar
42 See, for instance, the penetrating contemporary account by Bogdan-Duică, G., Bucovina. Notiţe politice asupra situaţiei ei [Bukovina. Political Notes on Its Situation] (Sibiu, 1895)Google Scholar. The “Twelve Points” may be found in Sbiera, Ion, O pagină din istoria Bucovinii din 1848–1850 [A Page from the History of Bukovina in 1848–1850] (Cernăuţi, 1899), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
