Repercussions of the work

The first scholarly conference devoted to Erdély története was convened at Debrecen, in October 1987, when twenty-eight historians aired their comments and complementary contributions. Some of the participants complained that the work failed to investigate the ethnogenesis of the Romanians and that the post-1918 survey was too brief. Opinions differed on the circumstances of the Hungarians' settlement in Transylvania, on the nature of the medieval voivodeship, and on the relations between the Principality and the Sublime Porte. Kossuth's views on the nationality question received further elaboration, but it was noted that Hungarian political parties paid scant attention to these views either before or after 1867. Additional information was offered on the role of Freemasonry. Participants expanded on Mihály Károlyi's and Oscar Jászi's approaches to the nationality problem in 1918–19, and offered critical analysis of the Groza regime's policies towards the Hungarian minority in the post-1945 period. Several participants deplored there were no Hungarian historians from Transylvania among the work's authors, an absence that is attributable to the political constraints of the 1980s.[1]1. István Rácz, ed., Tanulmányok Erdély történetéről: Szakmai konferencia Debrecenben, 1987. október 9-10. (Debrecen, 1988)

Despite some reservations, the work was well-received in Hungarian emigre circles. A specialist in Transylvanian history, Elemér Illyés, wrote that "we have long awaited a work of such scope and high standard, one whose timeliness, wealth of information, objectivity, and, above all, scholarly quality lift it well above earlier efforts. It is a noteworthy achievement."[2]2. Új Látóhatár, 1987, no. 3.

{1-10.} It could be anticipated that Erdély története would incur sharp criticism from political and academic circles in Romania. The first response came in the political sphere, when the so-called Council of Nationalities was convened in Bucharest on 27 February 1987. Reading from prepared texts, the speakers, including some who lacked any expertise in the subject, roundly denounced a work that they had not read. In his address, President Nicolae Ceauşescu reaffirmed the theory of Daco-Roman continuity, evoked the cooperative efforts of Hungarians and Romanians against the Ottomans, and declared that in Romania the nationality question had been fully resolved. He denounced the work as a "falsification of history" that disturbed the harmonious relations between two socialist states.

There followed a series of attacks from Romanian historians. On 7 April 1987, the London Times carried a paid advertisement in which it was alleged that by backing publication of the work, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences had sponsored a falsification of history. A pamphlet appeared, penned by three Romanian historians, bearing the title "A Conscientious Forgery of History of Transylvania under the Aegis of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences."[3]3. S. Pascu, M. Muşat, and F. Constantiniu, "A Conscientious Forgery of History of Transylvania under the Aegis of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences," Romanian News Agency, n.d. The authors reiterated the basic tenets of Romanian historiography with regard to Daco-Roman continuity, the autonomy of the Transylvanian voivodeship, the national endeavours of the voivode Mihai Viteazul, the justified rebellion of Transylvania's Romanians during the Hungarian War of Independence in 1848–49, and the oppression of Romanians by Magyars in the period of the Dual Monarchy (citing, in support, Marx, Lenin, Tolstoy, and the Norwegian dramatist Kvikne Björnson). They credited Transylvania's Romanians for the annexation enshrined in the Treaty of Trianon, evoked the oppression of Romanians and the deportation of Jews between 1940 and 1945 in Northern Transylvania, and reiterated that the nationality question had been satisfactorily settled in Romania. They branded Erdély története a {1-11.} revisionist and chauvinist work reminiscent of Hungarian historiography in the Horthy era. Romanian emigre circles in the West excoriated a Communist dictatorship that oppressed Romanians and Hungarians alike in Romania but largely endorsed the official tenets of Romanian historiography.

In the wake of the above-noted advertisement, the Times Literary Supplement published, on 2 October 1987, a review article by the Oxford historian Norman Stone. The latter outlined the evolution of Transylvanian society and its religious pluralism, and praised the region's cultural legacy. He regretted that the 19th century was covered more lightly in the work than earlier periods, that disproportionate attention was paid to military and diplomatic history in the section on the 17th century, and that the post-1918 survey dealt too summarily with matters other than culture. Rejecting the theory of Daco-Roman continuity, Professor Stone marshalled evidence to show that the Romanians had migrated into Transylvania from the Balkans. He evoked the different types of nationalism and the attempts at Hungarian-Romanian reconciliation in the post-1867 period, and challenged the claim that the nationality question had been resolved in Romania, citing some of the numerous anti-Hungarian measures taken by the Ceauşescu regime. His conclusion was that Romanian politicians and historians had over-reacted to a work that was undeniably scholarly in approach, "with an impeccable list of sources in various languages and grasp of difficult techniques in archaeology or the interpretation of place-names." Although not all English historians agreed with Norman Stone's contentions, the work itself was acknowledged to be of high scholarly calibre. Similarly, in a review published in Südost-Forschung (7 November 1988), the German scholar Gerhard Seewann found some cause for criticism but concluded that the work was the most up-to-date and comprehensive treatment of the history of Transylvania.

{1-12.} A conference involving French, Hungarian, and Romanian historians was convened in November 1992 at the Hungarian Institute in Paris. The French participants were J. Le Goff, who acted as chairman, J. Bérenger, and S. Rosière; from Romania came G. Cipaianu, the deputy director of the Historical Institute in Cluj (Kolozsvár), I. A. Pop, and F. Constantiniu, who was, along with Pascu, one of the signatories to the statement published in the London Times; and, from Hungary, G. Barta, A. Miskolczy, as well as the author of this introduction. The Hungarian participants summarized the rationale for the undertaking, stressing that the authors had sought to foster professionalism, objectivity, and scholarly debate.

The Romanian historians at the Paris meeting insisted on the validity of the theory of Daco-Roman continuity and invoked Anonymus's Chronicle — a source of dubious historical accuracy — in dismissing the notion of a "shifting ancestral land." They alleged that the Hungarians considered the Romanian people inferior because of the latter's predominantly pastoral occupation in earlier times. Further, they construed the Romanian uprising of 1848–49 as a reaction to Hungarian oppression, and the Trianon treaty as a "decision of the Romanian people." Although the Romanian historians conceded that, in some respects, the Hungarian authors had shown signs of progress, they observed that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" — i.e., the work did not depart from the tenets of an earlier phase of Hungarian historiography.

The French historians did not feel qualified to take a stand on the question of Daco-Roman continuity (nor did the work in question offer a definitive judgment) and agreed that there was need for further research and scholarly debate. They dismissed the charge that the Romanian people were considered inferior, noting that there were no doubt some shepherds among the participants' ancestors. They confirmed that the terms of the Trianon treaty were the work of the Entente, and that the "decision of the people" at {1-13.} Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) came after the terms were set. The conference chairman offered a reminder that the duty of historians was to uncover and analyze evidence and to bear in mind their influence on public opinion.[4]4. A summary of the proceedings was published in Magyar Tudomány, 1993, no. 5.

In recent years, several more narrowly-focused studies — dealing mainly with 20th century Transylvania — have been published by Romanian, Saxon, and Hungarian historians. Romanian scholars have also begun publication of a comprehensive history of the region.[5]5. Transilvania: Istoria României, I (Cluj-Napoca, 1997), II (Cluj-Napoca, 1999).

Some of the authors and editors of the three-volume Erdély története — András Mócsy, László Makkai, Gábor Barta, and Zsolt Trócsányi — have since passed away. Their contribution was invaluable, and we honor their memory. István Bóna joined our ranks to help edit the abridged version that appeared in several languages, including English.[6]6. See History of Transylvania (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1994).

The present publication presents the integral text of the three-volume edition, apart from the post-1920 period. Our hope and expectation is that English-speaking readers — scholars, students, and others interested in Central Europe — will welcome this history of Transylvania's peoples, an account that encompasses social change, the evolution of the nationality question, and the region's distinctive cultural development.

Béla Köpeczi