The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
-
Upload
central-scrutinizer -
Category
Documents
-
view
231 -
download
1
Transcript of The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
1/23
1
The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy by STEPHEN
FISCHER-GALATI *
The endless and frequently meaningless disputes involving thecontribution 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
It is perhaps fortunate that the role of the Rumanians as an
"integrating or disintegrating force" has not been as much discussed
as that of the other nationalities of the Habsburg monarchy. Thisshould at least make it a less difficult subject for historical
reappraisal.1It is also fortunate for the purpose of discussion that
the Rumanians' problems were almost entirely connected with those
of the Hungarians and Austrians and thus did not become involved
in the extremely complex interrelationships of the South Slavs. On
the other hand, historians and polemicists have generally given only
perfunctory consideration to the part played by the Rumanian
minorities of Bukovina, the Banat, Criana, and Maramure in the
process of integration or disintegration and to the relationships
between the Rumanians of these provinces and those of
*Austrian History Yearbook, vol. III, pt. 2, 1967, pp. 430-449.
1 Detailed bibliographical references on the Rumanian problem in Transylvania, the Banat, Criana,and Maramure can be found in Andrei Veress, Bibliografia romno-ungar [Rumanian-HungarianBibliography] (3 vols., Bucharest: Cartea Romaneasc, 1931-35); Ioachim Crciun, Bibliographic de la
Transylvanie roumaine 1916-1936 (Cluj: Revue de Transylvanie, 1937); and Constantin Daicoviciuand Miron Constantinescu, Brve histoire de la Transylvanie (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1965),pp. 427-435. No comparable surveys are available for Bukovina. However, a satisfactory bibliographic
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
2/23
2
Transylvania. More serious, they have failed to define clearly the
criteria for viability of the empire and the nature of the constructive
or erosive forces exerted 'by the Rumanians.
No matter what the errors of omission or commission, the
conclusions reached by various writers on the Rumanian nationality
question in the Habsburg empire have been, as a rule, categorical.
If Rumanian or pro-Rumanian, they agreed that the dissolution of
the monarchy was inevitable and that their conationals' greatest
historical contribution was the acceleration of the process of
disintegration. If Hungarian or pro-Hungarian, they concluded that
even if the empire was not salvageable in its traditional form, it
could have been pre served in its post-Ausgleichformat had it not
been for the destructive attitude of certain non-Hungarian
minorities, particularly the Rumanians.2 Few historians have
regarded the Rumanians as a force tending to stabilize the empire.3
On balance, the evidence would favor the thesis that, al
though the Rumanians were among those forces that were most
instrumental in bringing about the ultimate dissolution of the
empire, prior to the final debacle they were among the most active
supporters of the imperial order. This apparent anomaly will
surprise only those who believe that nationalism per se is a
destructive force which makes impossible com promise or
coexistence with other nationalities in a multi national framework.
This interpretation hardly applies to the Rumanians of the Austro-
Hungarian empire, as a review of their problems and actions will
show.
survey can be found in Erich Prokopowitsch, Die rumnische Nationalbewegung in der Bukowina undder Dako-Romanismus (Graz: Bohlau, 1965), pp. 171-175.2The classic statement of both positions is in Eugene Horvth, Transylvania and the History of theRoumanians(Budapest; Srkny, 1935).3Although clearly a work a these, Constantin Daicoviciu et al., Din Istoria Transilvaniei[The History ofTransylvania] (2nd ed., 2 vols., Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1961), provides the best analysis ofthe contribution of the Rumanians to the stability of the Habsburg monarchy.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
3/23
3
The origins of the controversy regarding the aspirations of the
Rumanian minority in the Habsburg empire may be traced to the
Supplex libellus Valachorum.4This petition, which was submitted by
a group of Rumanian intellectuals to Leopold II toward the end ofthe eighteenth century, sought for the Rumanians of Transylvania
rights equal to those enjoyed by the privileged nations of the
province - the Magyars, Saxons, and Szeklers. Considered for a long
time as a manifestation of Rumanian nationalism, disruptive and
anti- Hungarian in character, the Supplex libellus has recently been
reinterpreted by Rumanian Marxists and other historians.5 The
conclusions reached vary in detail but agree essentially on the
document's conservative purpose: the attainment by the Rumanian
intellectuals and rising- middle class of the same status of a
medieval natio which the Magyars, Saxons, and Szeklers had
enjoyed since 1437.
The justification of the petitioners' arguments in terms of the
historic primacy and continuity of the "Rumanian nation" is notsurprising considering the cultural background of the principal
authors of the Supplex libellus, Georghe incai, loan Molnar, Samuil
Micu, and loan Budai-Deleanu. Their appraisal of the "historic
rights" of the Rumanians was remarkably modest. Their trump card,
Latinity, was used mostly for identification purposes and as
evidence of longevity of residence. The Supplex libellus did not per
se entail the restoration of whatever rights and privileges the oldestinhabitants of the province had enjoyed prior to their arrogation by
new comers. The status and rights of the existing three nations
were not contested. The Supplex libellus was essentially a plea for
the gradual and limited incorporation of the Rumanian bourgeoisie
4 The text of the Supplex libellus Valachorum can be found in David Prodan, Supplex libellusValachorum(Cluj, 1948), pp. 243-2735The most comprehensive Marxist interpretation is in Istoria Rominiei[The History of Rumania], Vol.
Ill (Bucharest: Academia Republicii Populare Romine, 1964), pp. 492-513. Consult also the excellentstudy by Keith Hitchins, "Samuel Clain and the Rumanian Enlightenment in Transylvania," SlavicReview, Vol. XXIII, No. 4 (December, 1964), pp. 660-675.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
4/23
4
and "bourgeois intellectuals" into the Magyar- dominated oligarchy
and for meaningful Rumanian representation in Transylvania's
political institutions. The suppliants' concern with the problems of
the Rumanian serf was minimal. Far from regarding Horea, Cloca,and Crian as representative of the Rumanian nation and its socio-
economic desiderata, they condemned the revolt of 1784 as the
illegal work of savages. Only the brutality of the repression was
condemned, and this on humanitarian rather than political grounds.
If any thing, the authors of the Supplex libellus, in that document
and in related writings, questioned the wisdom of Joseph IIs social
reformism and asked his successor Leopold II not to repeat Joseph's
errors but to exercise his authority and influence on behalf of
themselves as the representative segment of the Rumanian
population. No threats or even intimations of political action in case
the petition were denied by the emperor or rejected by the
privileged nations were made in the Supplex libellus Valachorum.
The petitioners had no thought of making common cause with the
Rumanians of Moldavia and Walachia; their principal argument was
that both Transylvania and the Habsburg monarchy would be
strengthened by making the local diet representative of the
interests of all the nations and by ending discriminatory socio-
economic practices against the Rumanian commercial and
intellectual elite.
The narrow scope of the aspirations of the Rumanianintellectuals was typical of the representatives of the so-called
"coala Ardelean" (Transylvanian School).6 No matter how
extravagantly the writings of Micu, incai, or Maior have been
interpreted, they were nationalist only in the sense that they
stressed the ethnic and historical differences between the
6 On the nature and message of the "Scoala Ardeleana" consult Vasile Maciu et al., Outline of
Rumanian Historiography until the Beginning of the 20th Century (Bucharest: Editura Academiei,1964), pp. 30-36. It is an original interpretation. See also coala ardelean [The TransylvanianSchool] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1959).
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
5/23
Rumanians and the other inhabitants of Transylvania.7 With one
notable exception, loan Budai-Deleanu's iganiada (The Gypsy
Epic), these writings were fundamentally linguistic exercises. The
iganiadaalone contained novel political ideas.8
This poem has beenacclaimed by Marxist historians as the initial formulation of a
common political goal for all Rumanians of Transylvania - social and
national emancipation.9 Such an interpretation of Budai-Deleanu's
work may be correct, but it must be noted that his concept of social
reform was far more developed than that of other champions of
national liberation. Actually, the iganiada, is a plea for the political
emancipation of all the inhabitants of the monarchy, not just the
Rumanians, from the feudal and medieval order. Budai-Deleanu
does not envisage the establishment of separate nationality groups
in the Habsburg empire or the union of the Rumanians north and
south of the Danube. Instead, he postulates the revolutionary
democratic reorganization of the empire within the existing
geographic and multinational framework.
Similar motifs, in more rudimentary form, are also to be found
in the folk ballads of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries. However, the tendency of certain nationalist and Marxist
historians to interpret popular demands for reform and expressions
of discontent with the feudal order as nationalist manifestations
seems unwarranted.10 Such interpretations are based on the
simplistic concept of the inherent conflict between Magyar andRumanian or landlord and serf and ignore the fact that, even if a
majority of the latifundiaries were Hungarian and a majority of the
7Compare Hitchins, "Samuel Clain and the Rumanian Enlightenment in Transylvania," pp. 660-675,with Maciu, Outline of Rumanian Historiography, pp. 30-36. See also Daicoviciu, Din IstoriaTransilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 278-297.8D. Popovici, La littrature roumaine l'poque des lumires(Sibiu, 1945), pp. 109-116 and 448-475.9Most forcefully stated in Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 296-297.10 See also Cornelia Bodea, "Preocupari economice si culturale in literatura transilvan dintre anii1786-1830" [Economic and Cultural Preoccupations in Transylvanian Literature between 1786 and1830], Studii, Vol. IX, No. 6 (1956), pp. 87-104.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
6/23
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
7/23
encouraged only such national self-assertion or social reform as was
authorized by Vienna. The Church was indeed a pillar of strength for
the Habsburg emperors.12
Admittedly, this situation changed in the 1840's, primarily
because of the socio-economic and political attitudes of the
Hungarian aristocracy. As has been pointed out recently by
Rumanian historians of Transylvania, the demands of the Rumanian
bourgeoisie were forced into a nationalist mold because they were
rejected by the Magyar aristocracy on the basis either of medieval
prerogative or modern nationalist doctrine.13 Indeed, it was the
"aristocratic nationalism" of the Hungarians, with its crass
intolerance of the rights and aspirations of national minorities, that
led to the equating of socio-economic reform with national rights
and the acceptance of this formula by the Rumanian population at
large. It mattered relatively little whether Hungarian nationalist
intransigeance was a reflection of the magnates' conservatism or of
the lesser nobility's chauvinism, since, whatever the source, itinvariably stressed the primacy of the Hungarians.
It is true that the reformist nobility favored the emancipation
of the bourgeoisie, but their plans for the creation of a "landlord-
bourgeois" Hungary excluded the Rumanian middle class and would
thus have perpetuated its political and socio- economic inferiority. It
is not surprising, therefore, that the Rumanian bourgeoisie feared
Kossuth more than the Hungarian traditionalists and relied on the
emperor to prevent the victory of the "reformists." As Victor
Cheresteiu and other serious students of Transylvanian history
have correctly recognized, the majority of the Rumanian
bourgeoisie' preferred reform within the existing framework or even
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 IstoriaRomniei, Vol. IV (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1964), pp. 25-35.13Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 318-350.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
8/23
8
the maintenance of the status quo to any change that would have
jeopardized the stability of the imperial order.14But the number of
those favoring a more comprehensive assertion of the Rumanians'
rights than that contained in the Supplex libellus through theinclusion of an emancipated peasantry in an enlarged Rumanian
natio or perhaps even through the establishment of a Rumanian
region directly subordinated to the emperor was increasing.
Nevertheless, the historian should be ware of current exaggerations
concerning the importance of the minority viewpoint, since the
broader doctrine of "national" and "social" change was formulated
and accepted only by a very small segment of intellectuals of
bourgeois origin.15It is also noteworthy that even among the most
vociferous exponents of "bourgeois nationalist" views few
contemplated common action with the Moldavians and Walachians,
and none favored the establishment of a Greater Rumania. The
generation of 1848 was aware of the similarities in the several
Rumanian doctrines, but the Transylvanian Rumanians were
concerned primarily with the attainment of their own goals on the
basis of an "objective" analysis of historical conditions in
Transylvania alone. They were basically bourgeois social (not
national) revolutionaries who were ready to collaborate with fellow
bourgeois liberals of Hungarian, Saxon, and Szekler origin for the
attainment of a common end: the pro motion of the interests of the
enlightened bourgeoisie, threatened, on the one hand, by traditional
Magyar feudal conservatism and, on the other, by a nationalistic,
aristocratic-led bourgeois revolution. No matter whether it was
strictly class, class nationalist, social, or "social" and "national"
oriented, on the eve of 1848 the "bourgeois nationalism" of the
14Victor Cheresteiu,A magyarorszgi romn sajt politikai vezreszmi s munkja a szabadsgharceltti vtizedben [The Principal Political Ideas and the Activity of the Rumanian Press in Hungary inthe Decade before the War for Independence] (Budapest, 1917), pp. 3-33; Victor Cheresteiu,"Luptatorul revoluionar Eftimie Murgu" [The Revolutionary Eftimie Murgu], Studii, Vol. IX, No. 1
(1956), pp. 65-86; Nicolae lorga, Istoria romnilor din Ardeal i Ungaria [The History of theRumanians of Transylvania and Hungary] (Bucharest: Gutenberg, 1915), pp. 136-148.15Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. I, pp. 340-349.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
9/23
9
Rumanians militated in favor not only of the maintenance but
actually of the strengthening of the empire and imperial authority.16
The frequent characterization of the revolution of 1848- 1849
as either a nationalist or a "social" and "national" movement does
not bear rigorous critical analysis.17 It was nationalist or national
only in a very narrow sense. The elements of social revolution,
which were most manifest in Transylvania proper, were generally
devoid of national identification. The issues were simple: for the
peasant, emancipation from serfdom; for the middle class,
economic and political equality with the other natios. In 1848 only
the intellectuals debated the degree to which Rumanian national
and social aspirations should be pressed.
The nationalism of the Transylvanian bourgeoisie was as
modest as their program for social reform. The extremists among
them asked for nothing more than the recognition of the Rumanian
nation as a political entity enjoying national autonomy under the
direct jurisdiction of the court in Vienna.18 Their nationalism was
anti-Hungarian in character only to the extent to which the interests
of the Rumanian bourgeoisie were in conflict with those of the
Hungarian aristocracy. The Transylvanian bourgeoisie identified
their interests with the Hungarian, Saxon, and Szekler merchant
class far more than with the Rumanian peasantry. In fact,
emancipation of the Rumanian masses was a sentimental idea
rather than a political requirement. The bourgeoisie shied away
from collaboration with the intellectual "extremists," leaders of
separate revolutionary movements like Avram lancu, peasant
16La Transylvanie, pp. 370-378.17The standard "nationalist" interpretation is by I. Moga, "Luttes des Roumains de Transylvanie pourlmancipation nationale," La Transylvanie, pp. 379-451. The standard Marxist interpretation is inDaicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 1-132.18Simion Barnuiu, Romnii i ungurii [The Rumanians and the Hungarians] (Cluj, 1924). This workhas valuable annotations by G. Bogdan-Duica. See also Silviu Dragomir, Studii i documente privitoare
la revoluia romnilor din Transilvania in anii 1848-1849 [Studies and Documents concerning theRevolution of the Rumanians of Transylvania in 1848-1849] (4 vols., Cluj, 1944-46); and G. Bogdan-Duica, Viaa si ideile lui Simeon Bnuiu [The Life and Ideas of Simeon Brnuiu] (Bucharest, 1924).
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
10/23
1
meutes, and the Moldavian and Walachian rebels, whether active
or in exile. They gave national identification to their socio-economic
and political goals only for the purpose of differentiating themselves
from the anti-imperial Magyar revolutionaries and, to a lesserextent, the conformist Szeklers and Saxons. The abolition of the
medieval nations in Transylvania by imperial action and the granting
of equality to all subjects in 1849 generally satisfied their
"nationalist" yearnings.
It is also erroneous to overemphasize the nationalism - or
national aims - of the more radical revolutionaries, particularly
Iancu's.19It must not be forgotten that lancu was basically a social
revolutionary who collaborated with his Magyar counterparts for the
attainment of the radical aim of emancipation of the peasantry and
bourgeoisie and "democratic rule" in a multinational Hungarian
state. His estrangement from the Hungarians and subsequent
turning to the Habsburgs for protection of Rumanian interests
occurred only after the Hungarian revolutionaries had rejected hispolitical principles, or rather, had denied the need for Rumanian
national identification in social revolutionary movements. Iancu's
position thus was very close to that of the Rumanian intellectuals of
the Banat, Criana, and Maramures who had initially sup ported the
Hungarian "democratic revolution" in the expectation that a united
yet multinational Hungary would be ruled by and for the benefit of
all its nationalities and who turned to the emperor in 1849 onlybecause of the intransigeance and dogmatism of the Magyar
revolutionary leaders.20 It must be recognized, however, that like
lancu and other Transylvanians, the "radical" Rumanian intellectuals
were conscious of the incompatibility of their aims with those of the
19 Avram Iancu's views are best expressed in his Raportui lui Avram lancu [The Report of Avramlancu] (Sibiu, 1884). Silviu Dragomir, Avram lancu (Bucharest, 1924), is still the most authoritativestudy of lancu.20Silviu Dragomir, Tratativele romno-maghiare din vara anului 1849 [Rumanian-Magyar Negotiationsin the Summer of 1849] (Cluj, 1947), pp. 1-35; Cheresteiu, "Lupttorul revoluionar Eftimie Murgu,"pp. 65-86.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
11/23
11
conservative monarchy, as well as of the advantages that might
eventually be derived from linking social discontent with national
discrimination. At the same time, they were aware of the fact that
their position was not shared by most Rumanian cultural andspiritual leaders and the peasantry whose cause they sought to
promote.
The majority of the intellectuals and clergy in all parts of the
monarchy were mainly concerned with cultural autonomy.21 They
remained loyal to the emperor throughout the crisis and regarded
him as their protector against Magyar, Serbian, or Ruthenian
domination. Their political formulae also reflected their
unquestionable Kaisertreue. Most of them were sympathetic to the
aspirations of the peasantry, but they opposed social violence as a
means of securing emancipation. They were generally successful in
steering the masses away from radical influences and actions and
exploited the fundamental faith of the peasants in the Church and
the emperor.
22
By 1849, they, like all Rumanians whose desideratawere at least superficially satisfied by the emperor, were among the
staunchest supporters of imperial rule.
A controversy persists over the nature of Rumanian
nationalism in the Habsburg monarchy between the end of the
1848-1849 revolution and the Compromise of 1867.23Neither the
nationalist historians outside Rumania nor the Marxist school has
been prepared to accept the fact that during this period "bourgeois
21. See the summary statement in Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 36-62. See also asimilar statement on Bukovina in Prokopowitsch, Die rumnische Nationalbewegung in der Bukowina,pp. 39-45. In addition, see loan Lupa, Mitropolitui Andreiu aguna (Sibiu, 1911), pp. 48-67; and N.Popea, Memorialul arhiepiscopului i metropolitului Andreiu baron de aguna [The Memorial ofArchbishop and Metropolitan Andreiu aguna], Vol. I (Sibiu, 1889), pp. 248-249.22 See the summary statement in Victor Cheresteiu, "Contribuiii la istoria micrilor raneti nTransilvania n anul revoluionar 1848" [Contributions to the History of Peasant Movements inTransylvania in the Revolutionary Year 1848], Studii i referate privind istoria Romniei[Studies andReports concerning the History of Rumania], Vol. II (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1954), pp. 1159-1199.23See Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 133-186; and Moga, "Luttes des Roumains deTransylvanie pour l'mancipation nationale," pp. 403-423. An interesting interpretation may also befound in Istoria Romniei, Vol. IV, pp. 398-440.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
12/23
1
nationalism," or the "social" and "national" struggle of the
Rumanians, was largely checked, first by the absolutist methods
employed by Vienna between 1849 and 1860, and after 1860 by the
"liberal regime."
It may, of course, be argued that the socio-economic and
political changes that occurred between 1849 and 1867 paved the
way for the Ausgleich and subsequent nationalist manifestations.
One of the merits of Marxist historians is that they have analyzed
the Rumanian "social" and "national" movement on that basis. On
the other hand, the contention that the political consciousness of
the Rumanian population at large increased during those years and
in the process veered toward the idea of union with Walachia and
Moldavia is inaccurate. The post-revolutionary solutions propounded
by Rumanian political exiles such as the national integration of all
Rumanians or the international union of all social and national
revolutionaries represented the views of a tiny and non-influential
minority.
24
The overwhelming majority of the population, it must be
recognized, either favored the acceptance of Habsburg reform and
political patronage or else sought the improvement of their status
through channels leading directly to the imperial court. Even the
intellectuals, the most outspoken critics of the inequities inherent in
both the absolutist system- and the brief period of liberal rule, were
seeking only equality of rights with the Saxons, Szeklers, and
Magyars and the introduction or maintenance of the Rumanian
language in the ad ministration, courts, and schools. It is true that
men such as loan Maiorescu, August Treboniu Laurian, George
Barium, and Ioan Raiu aspired to attain more equitable political
24Representative arguments may be found in Cornelia C. Bodea, "Lupta pentru unire a revoluionari lorexilai 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: EdituraAcademiei, 1960), pp. 129-133; and in Dan Berindei and Vasile Curticpeanu, "Revoluia de la 1848-1849" [The Revolution of 1848-1849], Studii, Vol. XV, No. 6 (1962), pp. 1592-1593.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
13/23
13
representation in the diet or political rights in general for the
Rumanians of Transylvania and the Banat, but, like' those who
expressed their gratitude to Vienna for political and socio-economic
largesses, they were concerned only with effectuating a changewithin the post-1849 framework.25For them the main victory was
gained with the general recognition of the equality of rights of all
inhabitants of the empire, relative and theoretical though this
equality may have been in practice, and the specific recognition of
the status and rights of the Rumanian nation by the Transylvanian
diet of 1863.26
It is incontestable, however, that the devotion of the
Rumanians to Vienna declined somewhat in the 'sixties. The
deterioration of the economic position of the Rumanian peasantry
after emancipation caused some dissatisfaction and unrest among
the masses. Even though the peasants' discontent was essentially
directed against the Hungarian landlords rather than the benevolent
emperor, Francis Joseph himself was not absolved from blame forthe Magyars' defiance of the principles of imperial reform. Yet it
would be inaccurate to depict the Rumanian peasant as a radical
nationalist or a "national" or "social" revolutionary favoring political
independence under Rumanian rule, whether in Transylvania alone
or in a Greater Rumania.27
Also questionable is the recent contention that the Rumanian
peasantry of the Habsburg monarchy applauded the political
support given Alexandru Ion Cuza by the Walachian and Moldavian
masses at the time of the union of the principalities, both per se
and in anticipation of social reform and the national unification of all
25Characteristic is Gheorghe Bariiu, Pri alese din istoria Transilvaniei[Excerpts from the History ofTransylvania], Vol. II (Sibiu, 1890), pp. 128-133 and 154-164. See also Enea Hodo, Dincorespondent lui S. Brnuiu i a contemporanilor si [The Correspondence of S. Brnuiu and His
Contemporaries] (Sibiu, 1944), pp. 8-45.26V. Moldovan, Dieta Ardealului din 186S-1864[The Diet of Transylvania of 1863-1864] (Cluj, 1932).27For an excellent summary, see Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 135-164.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
14/23
1
"oppressed" Rumanians.28 In the 'sixties the peasant's Kaisertreue
still transcended any other political or national allegiance.
Similarly, the Rumanian middle class, although somewhat
disappointed with "imperial liberalism," entertained neither
animosity toward the emperor nor a desire for political autonomy or
union with Moldavia and Walachia. The bourgeoisie's dissatisfaction
with Habsburg economic policies was not so great as to blind them
to the fact that their status and prosperity were comparable to that
of all but the Austrian mer chants and capitalists in the empire and
certainly superior to that of their counterparts in Moldavia and
Walachia. Al though a complete reconciliation between their socio-
economic interests and those of Vienna appeared Utopian, the
modus vivendi made possible by imperial reform was acceptable
enough in the 'sixties and, for that matter, half a century later.
In fact, any objective assessment of the attitudes of all the
Rumanians in the monarchy even after the Ausgleich leads to some
rather startling conclusions. The most important is that the
opposition of the Rumanians, regardless of social status, to the
discriminatory and chauvinistic policies of the Hungarians was much
less pronounced and certainly more apolitical than the nationalist
historical school would have us believe. It was also less "national"
and "social" in character than is claimed by the Marxists. Of equal
importance, perhaps, is the fact that the growing disenchantment
with Vienna did not diminish the Rumanians' fundamental loyalty to
the emperor. Moreover, their refroidissement was based on
disapproval of the encouragement and support which the imperial
government gave to the Hungarians' discriminatory economic
policies and practices rather than on the court's toleration of
Hungarian political excesses. Finally, no real unionist sentiments
were voiced by the Rumanians in Transylvania, however disaffected
28Ibid., p. 146.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
15/23
1
they may have been with Magyar and imperial rule, nor, for that
matter, by those in the Banat and - for a long time - Bukovina.
The most striking aspect of the history of the Rumanians of
Transylvania and the Banat after the Ausgleich was the
improvement in economic status of all classes except the peasantry.
Rumanian Marxist historians have rendered' a major service to
students of the dual monarchy and at the same time have
undermined their own arguments by describing and analyzing the
vast economic progress made by the bourgeoisie and the rapidly
growing landlord class in the closing decades of the nineteenth
century.29The development of capitalism favored the growth of a
wealthy industrial, commercial, and, above all, financial bourgeoisie.
Even if on a comparative basis the Rumanians were no longer as
well off as their Austrian or Magyar counterparts, the evidence does
not support the theory that their inferior economic status increased
their "social" and "national" revolutionary ardor. On the contrary,
Rumanian merchants, industrialists, and financiers chose to adopt amost moderate attitude toward the several Hungarian regimes
beginning with Klmn Tisza's, despite the obvious "national" and
"social" humiliations to which they were subjected. It is indeed
noteworthy that the so-called "passivists" were primarily merchants
and businessmen and that their own National Party, at least under
Ilie Mcelariu's leadership, took refuge in the negative but safe
formula of non-participation in Hungarian political life.30
29See ibid., pp. 189-231, for a good summary. See also Ludovic Vajda, Despre situaia economic isocial-politic a Transilvaniei n primii ani ai secolului al XX-lea" [The Economic and Socio-PoliticalSituation in Transylvania in the First Years of the Twentieth Century], Studii i referate privind istoriaRomniei, Vol. II (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1954), pp. 315-320; and losif Kovcs, "Date nlegatur cu descompunerea rnimii din Transilvania dup desfiinarea iobagiei din anul 1848"[Information concerning the Decomposition of the Peasantry after the Abolition of Serfdom in 1848],Studii si cercetari de istorie[Historical Studies and Researches], Academia R. P. R., Cluj, Vol. VIII, No.1-4 (1957), pp. 244-251.30The classic and most explicit account is still T. V. Pcean, Cartea de aur sau luptele politice aleRomnilor sub Coroana Ungariei [The Golden Book, or the Political Struggles of the Rumanians underthe Hungarian Crown], Vol. IV (Sibiu, 1906).
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
16/23
1
This abstention, nominally based on the refusal of the
Rumanians to recognize Transylvania's incorporation into Hungary,
was not, however, an expression of implacable hostility to the
Hungarians. It merely reflected the de facto, if not de jure,acceptance of a status quo which did not rule out an improvement
of relations with them. The "passivists" were pre- pared to tolerate
all the restrictions imposed upon the Rumanians by successive
Hungarian regimes as long as their enforcement could be
circumvented by tacit acquiescence or, inconspicuous imperial
intercession. The National Party of Transylvania was thus essentially
an unofficial intermediary between the Rumanian middle class, and
by extension the peasantry, and the still unrecognized Magyar
governments. It also served as an official link with the Rumanians'
only legitimate" ruler, the Habsburg emperor.
It has been correctly pointed out that the attitude of the
members of the National Party of Transylvania differed from that of
the "activist" Rumanian National Party of the Banat and Hungary.
31
However, even though the landowning class and the more
belligerent intellectuals who formed the hard core of the "activists"
advocated a more determined anti- Hungarian, and, in this sense,
nationalistic line, they still sought coexistence rather than conflict
with the Magyar power elite. For however critical of the Hungarian
order "activist" leaders like Alexandru Mocioni or Vinceniu Babe
might have been, they shied away from drastic political action.Neither the leaders themselves nor the various newspapers and
journals published under the party's auspices sought active imperial
intervention in behalf of the Rumanians or even so much as
threatened mass demonstrations or economic boycotts against the
Magyar "oppressors" or waved the flag for a Greater Rumania.32
31 lorga, Istoria romnilor din Ardeal i Ungaria, Vol. II, pp. 221-225; Daicoviciu, Din Istoria
Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 232-251.32 On these points, consult loan Lupa "Inceputurile i epocele istorice ale ziaristicii romneti -transilvane" [The Beginnings and the Historical Periods of Transylvanian-Rumanian Journalism], Studii
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
17/23
1
Their moderation may be ascribed, at least in part, to their "class"
interests and inherent conservatism, but it is also connected with
their growing mistrust of Vienna and contempt for the Old Kingdom.
Mocioni's National Party was in fact more anti-Habsburg and anti-Hohenzollern than anti-Hungarian, since it operated on the
assumption that the Magyars would respect and even extend the
rights of the nationalities in return for acceptance of the dual
system and Magyar primacy in their half of the Austro-Hungarian
empire. Only when the expectations of the "activists" were
frustrated after the enactment of the odious Trefort Law, which
magyarized the educational system, did their organization seek a
rapprochement with the Transylvanian National Party, which
eventually resulted in the joining of the two groups in 1881.33This
union, to be sure, reflected an increase in anti-Hungarian
sentiment, but it did not represent an irreparable break with either
Budapest or Vienna.
As recent Rumanian writers have correctly pointed out, theunion of 1881 was as much anti-Habsburg as anti-Magyar. The
growing realization by the bourgeoisie, the landowners, and the
intellectuals that the Ausgleich was not only a com promise between
the emperor and the Austrian and Hungarian aristocracies, but also
a means for furthering the interests of the Austrian and Hungarian
bourgeoisie was a determining factor in the formation of a united
National Party.34
Although the Rumanians may have been aware in1881 of the "landlord- bourgeois" alliance and the exploitation of
other nationalities in "social" and "national" terms, their immediate
reaction and subsequent political behavior were not characteristic of
militant "nationalist" or "social" and "national" revolutionaries or
istorice[Historical Studies], Vol. V (Sibiu-Cluj, 1945-46), pp. 325-332; and loan Lupa, Contribuiunila istoria ziaristicei romnesti ardelene [Contributions to the History of Transylvanian RumanianJournalism] (Sibiu, 1&26),pp. 19-52.33 The political program of the Rumanian National Party can be found in Eugen Brote, Chestiunearomna n Transilvania i Ungaria[The Rumanian Question in Transylvania and Hungary] (Bucharest,1896), pp. 208-209.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
18/23
1
reformers. That their Kaisertreue was not too rudely shaken in 1881
can be seen in the fact that the new party looked to Vienna for
redress of grievances. Their continued efforts to reach an
accommodation with the Magyar regime also indicate that theiranti-Hungarian positions had still not crystallized. Not even the
emperor's rejection of the party's famous Memorandum of 1892 and
the virulent Magyar reaction to it resulted in anything but a tactical
readjustment of their modest program for "national" and "social"
reform.
In view of the exaggerated significance attached to the
Memorandum by Rumanian historians, past and present, it seems to
be necessary to emphasize its conservative character and the
moderation of* the petitioners' reaction to the negative response of
the Austrians and Hungarians.35 The reasons for the "landlord-
bourgeois" attitudes of the petitioners, as Marxist historians have
pointed out, are to be found in the search by the "dominant classes"
among the Rumanians for a Rumanian Ausgleich with eitherBudapest or Vienna, or even with both. It is, however, just as
erroneous to claim that the Memorandum was an expression of
militant nationalism as to view the moderation of the petitioners as
a betrayal by the propertied classes of the "social" and "national"
desiderata of the Rumanian masses. The document itself refutes the
former interpretation, while the latter presupposes the existence of
an acute class struggle among the Rumanians, which, in fact, didnot exist, and the prevalence of "national" and "social" sentiments
34Daicoviciu, Din Istoria Transilvaniei, Vol. II, pp. 263-259.35 See ibid., pp. 269-264, for a concise summary of contemporary Marxist interpretations.Characteristic of earlier interpretations is Moga, "Luttes des Roumains de Transylvanie pourl'emancipation nationale," pp. 441- 451. See also Z. Pclianu, "Guvernele ungureti i micareamemorandist a Romnilor din Ardeal" [The Hungarian Governments and the Memorandum Movementof the Rumanians of Transylvania], Revista, Fundaiilor Regale, Vol. I (1934), pp. 343-347; I. P. Papp,Procesul Memorandului Romnilor din Transilvania, [The Memorandum Trial of the Rumanians ofTransylvania] (2 vols., Cluj, 1932-33); tefan Pascu, Din rsunetul procesului memorandist n maselepopulare [The Echo of the Memorandum Trial among the Popular Masses] (Sibiu, 1944); and M.
Danciu, "Din frmntrile maselor populare n timpul procesului memorandist" [The Unrest of thePopular Masses during the Memorandum Trial], Studia Universitatis Babe-Bolyai. Historia, Vol. IV,No. 1 (1959), pp. 107-122.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
19/23
19
among the peasantry and working class that were irreconcilable
with the selfish "class interests" of the landlords, middle class,
churchmen, and "bourgeois" intellectuals.
The available evidence fails to reveal the existence of a clearly
defined national sentiment among the peasantry and workers
beyond an awareness of being Rumanian or of any thing more than
elementary social antagonism toward landowners, merchants, and
industrial entrepreneurs. The reason why the "propertied classes"
sought an accommodation with the Habsburgs and even the
Hungarians was ultimately rooted t, in their own prosperity and lack
of confidence in the Rumanians of the Old. Kingdom. To them, life
with Francis Joseph and Tisza was still preferable to life with Carol,
Carp, or Brtianu. This was also true of the peasantry and the
proletariat, for whom the very notion of union with their Rumanian
"brethren" was alien in the 'nineties and became ever more
distasteful when they became acquainted with the conditions which
prevailed in Rumania proper during and after the great peasantrevolt of 1907. If anything, mass identification with the National
Party and support of its policies, which was already strong- in the
'nineties, increased in the decade ante dating the First World War.
Thus, the majority of Rumanians, though dissatisfied with the
existing order and disappointed by Austro-Hungarian indifference to
their pleas, contemplated no radical movements and sought no
change outside the imperial framework.36
Recent historians of Transylvania and the Banat have accused
the leaders of the Rumanian National Party of selling out the true
"national" and "social" interests of all Rumanians to the Habsburgs
in the years preceding the First World War. Such arguments are as
questionable as those of the nationalist historians who depicted the
36 In addition to the references provided in note 35, see also Traian Lungu and Anastase lordache,"Romnia la nceputul secolului al XX-lea" [Rumania at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century], Studii,Vol. XV, No. 6 (1962), pp. 1639-1651.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
20/23
2
same leaders as champions of national unification. The "bourgeois"
leaders, tefan Pop, Iuliu Maniu, Alexandra Vaida, Teodor Mihali,
Aurel Vlad, and even the much-maligned "federalist" Aurel Popovici,
acted in good faith and with the support of their constituents.37
Aslong as the emperor and the Hungarians held out some hope of
compromise, as long as the prosperity of the Rumanians seemed to
be increasing, as long as the political actions and propaganda
emanating from the Old Kingdom held out little promise of an
improvement of existing conditions, the party's course of action was
acceptable on both "national" and "social" grounds, at least to the
Rumanians of Transylvania, the Banat, Criana, and Maramures.
Even the Marxists have not been able to demonstrate that the
dissatisfaction of the peasants and workers with their worsening
economic condition and the related "demonstrations" and minor
"revolutionary manifestations" implied a rejection of the policies of
their leaders or of the imperial order.38
Even more erroneous is the notion that in those years the,supreme goal of the National Party and of the Rumanians of
Transylvania, the Banat, Criana, and Maramure was the
establishment,, of a Greater, Rumania.39 It ignores the generally
apathetic response to the unionist propaganda from Bucharest,
particularly after the peasant revolts of 1907. This lack of
correlation between propaganda and political action has been
recognized in Marxist historiography, but its meaning has beendistorted to comply with the thesis of "social" and "national" dualism
37The most detailed summary of contemporary views can be found in Constantin Daicoviciu and MironConstantinescu, Destrmarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900-1918 [The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy] (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1964), pp. 93-189. A summary of pre-Marxistpositions may be found in loan Lupa, "La dsagrgation de la monarchie austro -hongroise et laliberation de la Transylvanie," La Transylvanie, pp. 453-468.38Daicoviciu and Constantinescu, Destrmarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900-1918, pp. 11-92 and231-262.39Clopoel, Revoluia din 1918 i Unirea Ardealului cu Romania[The Revolution of 1918 and the Unionof Transylvania with Rumania] (Cluj, 1926); Daicoviciu and Constantinescu, Destrmarea MonarhieiAustro-Ungare 1900-1918, pp. 175-189.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
21/23
21
in mass movements.40 It is claimed that Rumanian nationalist
propaganda in Transylvania and the other provinces failed because
the conservative regime in Rumania and the king himself were
opposed to the dismemberment of the Habsburg monarchy andnational union. This explanation fails to take into account the
absence of a powerful unionist movement and of "social" and
"national" manifestations in Transylvania and the Banat which, on
the whole, aspired to anything more than the mere reorganization
of the Rumanian nation in a manner compatible with the principles
of the Memorandum and the preservation of the Habsburg
monarchy. The idea of union with the Old Kingdom became
acceptable to the population at large only when the defeat of the
Austro-Hungarian empire seemed probable, and it became
genuinely appealing only when the monarchy was on the verge of
collapse.
It is perhaps paradoxical that the unionist propaganda
disseminated by the Rumanian government was more effective inBukovina than in Transylvania and the Banat in the decade before
the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy.41 This phenomenon is,
however, indicative of the commitment to the Habsburg monarchy
on the part of the leading classes and political organizations of the
more prosperous (and more Rumanian) provinces. In Bukovina the
intellectuals and peasantry, lacking comparable vested interests and
resentful of economic domination by foreign landlords, merchants,and "capitalists," were far more susceptible to the crude,
chauvinistic,, and often anti-Semitic propaganda emanating from
the Old Kingdom. Are we then to regard Eudoxiu Hurmuzaki, loan
Grmad or Lazr Gherman as more imbued with the "nationalist"
spirit or more convinced of the need for "social" and "national"
40Daicoviciu and Constantinescu, Destrmarea Monarhiei Austro-Ungare 1900-1918, pp. 105-116 and
131-136; Lungu and lordache, "Romnia la nceputui secolului al XX-lea," p. 1649, n. 5.41 A lucid summary will be found in Prokopowitsch, Die rumnische Nationalbewegung in derBukowina, pp. 130-158.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
22/23
2
Justice than Maniu, Pop, or Vaida? Hardly, it seems to me, unless
we equate nationalism with chauvinism and regard its supreme goal
as the creation of a national state regardless of its political and
economic viability.
The criteria of viability differed from province to province in
the monarchy. Enjoyment of political rights and cultural autonomy
did not prevent the Rumanians of Bukovina from harkening to the
siren song promising them a better national life in a Greater
Rumania. It is noteworthy, however, that, historically, neither the
intellectuals nor the peasantry of that province doubted the viability
of the Habsburg monarchy or expressed resentment over their
status in any degree com parable to that of the Transylvanians or
the inhabitants of the Banat, Criana, and Maramure.42 Their
"Twelve Points" of 1848 were, after all, accepted and provided the
framework for peaceful coexistence with Vienna and their Ruthenian
neighbors. Although the Rumanians of Transylvania, the Banat,
Criana, and Maramure had more serious doubts about thestability of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy than those of Bukovina,
they persisted to the end in their search for a compromise. Even as
late as the First World War they believed that the reshuffling of the
empire's assets and liabilities could still produce a stronger state in
which the conflicting but not irreconcilable interests of all its
inhabitants could be accommodated. The attainment of the "social"
and "national" goals of the Rumanians within the imperial framework seemed quite feasible to them.
The problem of the viability of the Habsburg empire in the
twentieth century is still unresolved. As far as the Rumanians of the
monarchy were concerned, the answer was generally positive. Their
42 See, for instance, the penetrating contemporary account by G. Bogdan-Duica, Bucovina. Notie
politice asupra situaiei ei [Bukovina. Political Notes on Its Situation] (Sibiu, 1895). The "TwelvePoints" may be found in Ion Sbiera, O pagin din istoria Bucovinii din 1848-1850 [A Page from theHistory of Bukovina in 1848-1850] (Cernaui, 1899), pp. 9-10.
-
8/13/2019 The Rumanians and the Habsburg Monarchy
23/23
appraisal of the problem and the solutions which they offered may
have been unrealistic, unhistorical, and/or class-oriented and may
have reflected the views of ignorant, scared, or selfish men; but the
attainment of a political and socio-economic utopia in a GreaterRumania was not necessarily the ideal of the majority of the
Rumanian in habitants of the Habsburg monarchy before 1918.