Jakó Zsigmond, Member of the Academy

Medieval Paleography and Historiography in Transylvania

Motto:
“Liber est lumen cordis, speculum corporis, virtutum magister, corona prudentium,
hortus plenus fructibus, partum floribus distinctum…”1

The city of Cluj, in the historiographical domain, boasts one of the high-class
medievalists who are part of the very narrow category of specialists in the auxiliary
sciences of history that is in the history of diplomacy and Transylvanian Latin
paleography, in sigillography, in filigranology and in the editing of sources of medieval
diplomas. The Academician Jakó Zsigmond excels in this professional spectrum and his
vast work through which he competently and accurately valued a precious
historiographical treasure concerning the remote multi-secular past of medieval
Transylvania transmitted through important narrative sources that were kept in archives
and in libraries, distinguishes itself. His reputation as a historian, as a university professor
and PhD of Babes-Bolyai University and as a researcher at the Institute for History from
Cluj till his retrial, but also his double membership in the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences since 1998 and in the Romanian Academy since 1996 validates the
achievements of a rich carrier of more than seven decades of deep research of the history
of medieval Transylvanian culture and society.
Born in 1916 in Rosiori/Diosig, Bihor county, in a documentary attested seven
century old family, the fascinating and iconoclast historian had made his secondary and
high school studies in Hungary, at Hajdúböszörmény, and graduated in 1939 the Faculty
of Letters and Philosophy at the Budapest University. As far back as the beginning of his
carrier he profiled his passion for every old book that was carefully analyzed and he
developed it in his work as an archivist at the “Pázmány” University, at which Institute
for History he was nominated tutor in 1939, and then at the State Archives from Budapest
(1940-1941) and the Archives of the Transylvanian Museum from Cluj, where he also
became a director. As an archivist he was constantly preoccupied with the adequate
conservation of the old documentary funds. The exercise of his historiographical
competences began with a thesis about the history of medieval Bihor County that he
defended in 1940 and which brought him the PhD title in the history of Hungary, of
Eastern Europe and in the auxiliary sciences of history. It was published, awarded and
very well received in the academic milieu of that period. Through fertile
complementarities between the academic trajectory and the research activity in the field
of written documents, the historian Jakó Zsigmond affirmed himself as a competent
expert of the history of the Hungarian kingdom, of the Transylvanian principality and of
the generally long meanders of the methodologically explored Transylvanian past through
an ample documentary and archivist investigation into the history of writing, books and
print.
The redoubtable work of the Transylvanian medieval period expert stratifies
thematically a whole history of writing, books and print, made through a systematic

1
The book is the light of the soul, the mirror of the body, the teacher of virtue, the crown of the wise, the
garden full of fruits, and a flowery meadow.

1
indexing and organization of the documentary sources and of the historiographical
contributions. Focused on the approach, definition and academic treatment of the domain,
he identified novel research directions in the field of the civilization of Transylvanian
book; he prospected the medieval antecedents of the Hungarian historiography and issued
major statements about the sources for the Hungarian-Romanian-German
historiographical triad. The Hungarian historian Jakó Zsigmond has written major works
and studies regarding Latin writing in the Middle Ages, medieval paleography and
sigillography, the organization of the Transylvanian waivodal common room in the XVI
century, paper mills and printing houses that existed in different centers from
Transylvania. In his paleographic researches based on the practical knowledge of the old
writings, he showed the importance of Latin paleography by analyzing the form of
writing transmitted through the sources and the transformations that intervened in the
writing technique along with the different levels of economic development, using a
methodologically applied conception.
Interpreter of the old writing’s culture, the learned scholar Jakó Zsigmond has
realized consistent approaches of historiographical reconstruction by valuing the
discovery and location of old manuscripts and prints which enrich the ancient
bibliography of our culture and which rival with the importance of the incunabula in
Western Europe. Through an impressive documentary corpus he preserved the written
dower kept on waxed plates, papyrus, parchment or paper, therefore evaluating the
phenomenon of culture by means of the forms of manifestation of codices and of the
documents issued by the medieval scriptoria and common rooms, the beginning of
written usage of the Latin language, the birth and dissemination of scholarly knowledge,
of the teaching and usage of writing, the instauration of the clerical monopoly on
scholarly knowledge, the usage of native languages in writing, the intellectuals,
laicization and the influence of cities on the extension of the usage of writing.
The picture of the prodigious scientific work of Jakó Zsigmond, member of the
Academy, encompasses works of large historiographical extent centered on the theme of
the fascinating universe of the medieval book, evoked in multiple and detailed
approaches, which offer precious information about the evolution of organizational forms
of the political-administrative, socio-economic and spiritual-religious life distinctive to
the Transylvanian territory: Románok és magyarok [Romanians and Hungarians]
(1943), A gyalui vártartomány urbáriumai [The Rent-rolls of the Gilău Stronghold]
(1944), The Organisation of the Transylvanian Voievodal Common Room at the
Beginning of the XVI century (1946), The History of the Potash Manufactory from the
Valley of Ungurului and Calin (1953), Les debuts de l’écriture dans les couches
laiques de la société feudale en Transylvanie (1955), The Beginning of Writing in the
Laical Stratum of the Population from medieval Transylvania (1956), Documents
regarding the history of Romania (1956), Archival Instructions of the Transylvanian
Offices 1575-1841 (1958), Az erdélyi papirmalmok feudálizmuskori törtenetének
vázlata [Historical Draft of the Paper Mills from medieval Transylvania] (1962), The
Sibiu Printing House and its Place in the History of XVI century Romanian Print
(1964), The Modern Conception of Paleography and its Application in the Latin
Paleographical Research in our Country (1965), The Development of the Questioning
and Methods in the latin Paleographical Research (1966), Cipariu’s Bibliophilly
(1967), Latin Medieval Codices from the Library of Timotei Cipariu (1967), The

2
Constitution of Cipariu’s Library before 1848 (1968), Timotei Cipariu and the
Possibilities of the Romanian Bibliophilly in Transylvania before 1848 (1968), XVI
Century Transylvanian Filigrees (1968), The Library of Cipariu before 1848 and its
Faith during the Revolution (1969), The Beginning of Paper Production. The Paper
Milles from Brasov and Cluj in the XVI Century (1970), Latin Writing in the Middle
Ages (1971), The Beginning of Blaj Printing House (1974), Irás, könyv, értelmiség.
Tanulmányok Erdély történelméhez [Writing, Books, Intelligentsia. Contributions to
the Study of Transylvanian History] (1976), Transylvanian Philobiblon (1977),
Művelődéstörténeti tanulmányok [Studies in the History of Culture] (1979),
Nagyenyedi diákok 1662-1848 [Pupils from Aiud] (1979, coauthor), A kolozsmonostori
convent jegyzőkönyvei 1298-1556 [The Protocols of the Cluj-Mănăştur Convent 1298-
1556] (1990), Társadalom, egyház, művelődés (Tanulmányok Erdély Történelméhez)
[Society, Church, Culture (Studies for the Transylvanian History)] (1997), Erdély
Okmánytár vol. I [Transylvanian Diploma Archive] (1997). The medievalist from Cluj
counts among the authors who contributed to the second volume of the treatise entitled
The History of Romania (1962), of the first four volumes from the series Documents
regarding the history of Romania (1951-1955) in which he wrote ample chapters
regarding the Transylvanian Latin paleography till the end of the XV century and of the
volumes X-XI of Documenta Historica Romaniae (1977, 1981). At present he works at
finalizing the third volume from the series Codex Diplomaticus Transsylvaniae.
Diplomata, epistolae et alia instrumenta litteraria res Transsylvanas illustrantia 1340-
1359 – a collection of medieval documents recorded, arranged and ordered by Jakó
Zsigmond for the Academy from Budapest in a work totalizing over 1100 known and
unedited documents, with an extremely detailed explicative index. Very highly rated in
the domain of historiographical erudition, the accurate archive explorer has turned his
reflection on the valorization of the findings described by a pertinent survey of the
significant approaches for the restitution of the diachronical dimension of the researched
historical space.
Professor Jakó Zsigmond, a faculty member of the Chair of universal history of
the Faculty of History and Philosophy at the Babes-Bolyai University between 1947 and
1981 and also a real historical school founder in medieval Latin paleography and a
researcher at the Institute for History and Archeology from Cluj between 1948 till 1968,
has distinguished himself through important historiographical contributions which
confirmed his elevated position of an erudite intellectual who promotes the rediscovery of
the past with a moderate historical conception and rigorously comprehends the cultural-
anthropological and civilizational characteristics of Transylvania. The intellectually
refined and tactful teacher who emanated the medieval and pre-modern air of old
universities was, as remembered by Nicolae Edroiu, member of the Academy and former
student who attended his courses, charismatic and persuasive, having the distinctive
natural style of the scholar who loved manuscripts, codices, printed books and archive
documents, doing passionately his profession. The teacher possessed a true art in
transmitting to students ways of deciphering and transcribing old texts, their content and
provenience, offering information about the authors of the writings, about the scribes and
copyists of the medieval scriptoria and common rooms in seminaries that became
authentic research methodology lessons. Wanting to remain uncompromised by the
ideological-political vassalage from the communist period he abdicated from the

3
doctrinaire felony, preferring the refuge in the world of paleographical researches, more
distant from the pressure of ideological devaluation and distortion of partisan
regimentation. After 1990, simultaneously with the postmodern standards of the new
historiographical trend, which proposes, besides the alternative discourse, a desirable
historical rewriting, free from excesses and partisanships, with the attempt of making a
synthetic history of Transylvania which could surpass the controversies and the
parallelism of the historiographical school that were part of the dispute, Jakó Zsigmond,
member of the Academy, preferred a positioning defined by articulating comparative
perspectives and some methodological directions with the purpose of a unitary
approaching and encompassing of the past of all Transylvanian ethnic communities. The
divergences in exposition and interpretation that are more accentuated than the
convergences lead to a absence of cooperation of the historians that are obliged to walk
three different paths for the irregular publication of the traditional historiographical
sources, therefore the approach drags on because of too many suspicions among
specialists that remain reserved and circumspect due to past and present reasons, all this
impediments making the above purpose uncertain.
President of the “Transylvanian Museum Society” from Cluj (1990-1994), the
historian Jakó Zsigmond is honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and
of the Historical Hungarian Society, Doctor Honoris Causa of the Ráday Academy and of
the Eötvös Lorand University from Budapest, honorary member since 1966 of the
Romanian Academy and co-president of the World Union of Hungarian Historians.
Attached through close professional relationships to the Hungarian historical
school and Western school, owner of an impressive and valuable personal library, whose
organization proves skill and art in the archival science, Jakó Zsigmond, member of the
Academy, lives enthusiastically devoted to books and their historical and spiritual roots.

*
**

“To write means to fight, to serve, to prepare for one’s future.”

- How does the personal and professional history of Jakó Zsigmond, member of the
Academy, look like?
- It is a history rich in events, which crosses the torrential XX century, at times with
effusion, but also sometimes in crisis, all moments being lived with confidence and the
wish to accomplish something durable towards a better knowledge of the distant
Transylvanian past. During all this time my career as a medievalist began and developed
itself and my preoccupations regarding historiographical research thematically focused
on the importance and significance of writing, books and culture in the Transylvanian
Middle Ages, based on the study of the narrative and diplomatic sources, mostly from the
period of the Hungarian kingdom and of the Transylvanian principality. My passion for
old books gave me the chance of intimately knowing manuscripts and prints, beginning
with the first written medieval documents known in our culture, which dates back around
year 1020. From the viewpoint of my origin, my personal history begins in the
picturesque historical county of Bihor, where I was born in the year 1916. My family had

4
a landlord and intellectual tradition, and inhabited Diosig, where, together with my two
sisters, I had spent my childhood, adolescence and other important moments related to
my education and my formation. I graduated in Budapest and began my archive
researches during the years of great historical torments and rebellions at the beginning of
the Second World War. After defending my PhD thesis under the supervision of Professor
Mályusz Elemer, which was published in 1940 and also earned me an important prize, I
combined the work as an Assistant Lecturer with that of an archivist. As far back as the
beginning of my career I had a liking for the study of historical sources and was
interested in the Middle Ages and the Latin paleography in Transylvania. Therefore I was
preoccupied with the identification, highlighting and publishing of the sources, many of
these being insufficiently known and remaining unpublished. I tried to write studies,
paper and overviews in this direction, which could offer the trustiest picture of the
medieval historical realities derived from and transmitted through the information and
data offered by the written sources. I followed the evolution of writing in Transylvania in
all its complexity. On the basis of the most important materials, both qualitatively and
quantitatively, which historiography uses for the reconstruction of the past, we underlined
the importance of the Latin paleography for the historical research regarding
Transylvania. The analysis and research of written materials presuppose a good
knowledge of the paleographical and sigillographical research methods, which are
necessary in identifying authentic documents. The thematical map of my preoccupations
is related to the history of Transylvania and its intellectual and cultural evolution process,
its civilization beginning under the influence of the Western church.
- How do you see the historiography of Transylvania under the light of the
published historical sources?
- The present state of the publishing of the historical sources in Transylvania is
determined by the fact that, in the past, the bent of the Carpathian Mountains had
separated Romania in two distinct spaces regarding the culture of writing: the Latin and
the Cyrillic one. The latter was abandoned by the Romanians in favor of the first only
around 1860, causing major differences both in the quantity as in the quality of the
written sources that came out of the inner or the outer Carpathians. This fact explains the
difference between the self-evaluation and the general situation of the publication of
Transylvanian sources, compared to the valorification of the historical sources’ heritage
common to the Transylvanian one, in Hungary or even in Slovakia. Researching the
evolution of historical sources from Transylvania is also crucial, due to the fact that the
past of this domain plays an important and even determinant role, both for the present as
for the past. I presented a synthesis in the first volume of the Transylvanian diplomas
archive, Erdélyi Oknánytár, and as regards the written sources from Romania, the most
significant information can be found in the works of professors Ioachim Crăciun from
Cluj-Napoca and Damian P. Bogdan from Bucharest. To this effect Romania holds a total
of 467 narrative sources dated before 1800, out of which 54 treat Moldova, 43 treat Ţara
Românească and 370 treat Transylvania. Out of the latter, 155 are written in Hungarian,
104 in German, 90 in Italian, 16 in Romanian, and 5 in other languages. According to the
inventory made by Professor Bogdan, Romania holds approximately 600 Romanian
Cyrillic manuscripts, out of which 400 treat Moldova, 150 Ţara Românească and 20
Transylvania. The estimate number of Cyrillic diplomas is 7000, out of which 4000 treat
Moldova, 3000 treat Muntenia and 11 Transylvania. Nonetheless the number of Latin

5
diplomas that treat waivodal Transylvania, therefore till the end of the year 1541, is
around 35-40000. To this number we must add another 150000 pieces from the period of
the principality, till the year 1700 and another 1.5-2000000 from the XVIII century. The
archival material, in similar quantity, from the shires of Maramureş, Satu Mare, Bihor,
Arad and also Banat that form the parts of the Hungarian kingdom should not be
neglected. Out of this huge pile of documents one third is in Latin and the other two
thirds in Hungarian and German. Opposite to this reality, the Cyrillic writing and the
Slavonic language continue to be perceived as the major source of information to what
regards the past of the Romanian country and nation.
All these discordances were, between the World Wars, attenuated due to the fact
that the specialists that were members of the national minorities continued their activity
also after 1918. The problems grew deeper after 1949, when the communist dictatorship
dissolved Hungarian and Saxon scientific societies like the Transylvanian Museum
Society (Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület) and the Transylvanian Studies Association (Verein
für siebenbürgische Landeskunde) together with their scientific collections and private
archives. The Romanian experts that knew Hungarian and German reached the old age
and passed away. The education of a new generation of scholar had been neglected, so
that now the fingers of one hand are enough to count the remaining Romanian historians
that are acquainted with the old Hungarian or German archive material. This has
happened during the dictatorship in a quiet and inconspicuous manner. Its negative effects
become dominant not as much in the historiographical domain as in the archival domain,
simultaneously with the passing away of the specialists that knew the languages of the
old Transylvanian sources and administrative structures. In the case of history, the
knowledge of the languages of the sources means much more than the command of a
contemporary language. The historian and especially the archivist have the obligation to
organize research and value the documentary heritage they administer. Therefore they
must be acquainted with the archaic forms of the language and must be informed about
the structure and activities of former institutions which issued these written documents.
The worsening of the situation is manifest also in other respects. Although in Hurmuzaki
and Iorga’s time translating the texts in Latin or in other international languages was not
an issue, in the last half of the century the editing of Latin or German texts has become a
common practice. This new way of editing does not cater for the quantity of
Transylvanian sources or their language. This way the necessity of scientific translation
makes heavier the burden of editing, this meaning doubling the typographical space and
raising the publishing expenses. Great effort would be spared if the Romanian speaking
public is informed through digests, in the case of diplomas and documents, an already
familiar practice in the Transylvanian research.
- Which are the most important accomplishments of the Romanian, Hungarian
and German researches in Transylvania in the last fifty years?
- An exposition of these accomplishments begins with a division in three
chronological groups: medieval sources (before 1541), sources dating from the
principality period and modern sources that reach the middle of the XIX century. The
Marxist historiography had set in 1949, among its most important priorities, the
publication of a diploma archive for the whole country, following unique criteria and
discarding all previous initiatives from this domain. In the C series of the monumental
project realized under the auspices of the Romanian Academy, which focused on

6
Transylvania, entitled Documents regarding the History of Romania, which became
Documenta Romaniae Historica, were published, in the 15 volumes that appeared
between 1951 and 2006, a number of 6318 diploma, dating from the period 1075-1360…
translated or in digests in Romanian. In the first six volumes, the Latin text of the
diploma was given only in the case of the unpublished ones or of those considered
important for the history of the country. This practically meant a regress also from the
way of editing of previous Romanian diploma archives and was change for a better one
since 1977, because starting from the seventh volume (from the year 1351), every
diploma came out bilingual, that meaning in Latin and in Romanian translation. Most of
the texts are republications and treat the whole territory of Romania, inner and West of
the Carpathians and not only the historical Transylvania. In the recent volumes the
number of previously unpublished texts has fortunately increased, and these volumes are
accompanied by name and subject indexes. The dangerous signs of the crisis that
intervened among the historiographies are denaturizing the faith of this praiseworthy
initiative. The indifference and the lack of competent followers endanger the continuity
of this initiative. The problems are very well illustrated by the year of publication of
individual volumes. The first six volumes that came out 1951-1955 were followed in
1977 by the seventh volume, after 22 years. Between the ninth and tenth volume a
decennial and a half passed (1981-1994). Volume XI that treats the years 1371-1375 was
edited during six years, but another two years passed till it was published in 2002.
Against the opinion of the scientific community, the first volume of the D series of
sources that treats the relations among the three historical provinces was published till
now. The latter actually doubles the diploma published in the pervious series, among
which the Transylvanian ones. Opposite to the indifference of the official science, it
remains only the hope that the initiatives of the young historians, educated in the
scientific institutions from Cluj and attached to journal Mediaevalia Transilvanica, will
bring a modernization of the mentality that commands the retrieval of sources, which is
both necessary and mandatory for the modernization of Transylvanian medievalistics. A
fortune situation was brought by the fact that the project initiated by Hungarian and
German institutions that were dissolved by the dictatorship, were resumed by the former
researchers as permitted by the circumstances, that is a personal interest.
The editing of the Transylvanian diploma archive, initiated by the Transylvanian
Museum Society in 1942, has reached the end of the XIV century. The editing of the
Saxon diploma archives was also continued. The publishing of the results became
unfortunately dependent of the political circumstances. The improvement of the
Romanian-German relations made possible the publication of three volumes of
Urkundenbuch (1438-1486), between the years 1975 and 1991, under the common
patronage of the Academies from Romania and Germany. The normalization of the
relations created the possibility that out of the old and pretentious Saxon series of source
editions, the ones regarding Braşov and then Sibiu to be continued. In the bilingual
volumes are published written sources integrally translated in Romanian, according to the
local practice, that treat guilds from the XV-XVI from Braşov and the ones that treat craft
and commerce from Sibiu between the years 1224 and 1579. The renewal of these two
series that began in the XIX century is the outcome of the collaboration between the
Transylvanian Studies Society from Heidelberg and the Braşov and Sibiu local branches
of the National Archives. As a result of a similar collaboration, Transylvanian research

7
has at its disposal another three volumes of digests from the old archive of the town of
Bistriţa, edited by Albert Berger. This research instrument could be published only due to
the patriotism of Ernst Wagner and with the support of the Cluj branch of the National
Archives.
In regard to the Hungarian historiography, the most significant outcome was the
publication by the Romanian Academy in 1973 of the economic sources of the domain of
Hunedoara between the years 1511-1536, as an annex to the study about the history of the
domain, written in Romanian. The Kriterion publishing house could not publish, even
after ten years of throwing-back, the volumes comprising the 5444 digests of the Cluj-
Mănăştur convent protocols. At last the two massive volumes that had gone through the
censorship calvary, were published by the Hungarian Academy publishing house in 1990.
Also the first volume of the Transylvanian diploma archive containing the diplomas
treating Transylvania from the Arpad époque was published only in 1997, as a part of the
publishing of sources edited by the Hungarian National Archives, after a fifty years long
obstacle race. The second volume, containing the Transylvanian diplomas of Carl I of
Anjou, was finalized with the support of the Hungarian national fund for scientific
research. In the state of political-scientifically coma in which we find ourselves, there is a
chance that the critical editing of the digests volumes of the approximately 35000
Transylvanian diplomas before 1542 to be finalized. The condition for this outcome is the
revival of Hungarian university education in Cluj and of the research in the institutional
framework of the Transylvanian Museum Society, because Romanian research will not
exempt Hungarian historiography of the burden of editing the old Transylvanian sources
for a long while.
In the case of the sources dating from the period of the principality, the Hungarian
historiography has to solve more significant problems than in the case of the Middle
Ages. Since the middle of the XVI century, simultaneously with the spread of writing, the
vernacular languages supersede Latin in writing. Losing its solemnity, writing is not an
extraordinary activity anymore, being also used for recording usual daily events. The
growth of the writing practice was fast, augmenting the number of written papers or
“sources”, from which thousands of copies survived. Hungarian language is used from
the courts of the princes and nobles to the free peasants’ households in the Székely land,
whereas among the town bourgeoisie and the peasants from the Saxon area the writing in
German is disseminating. The change that emerged in the practice of writing was also
perceived by the waivods and mandarins from Moldavia and Ţara Românească,
determining them to abandon Latin in favor of Hungarian in the correspondence with the
Saxon village from the second half of the XVI century. These linguistics changes, as well
as the rapid growth can be perceived also in the case of the narrative sources (chronicles,
memoirs).
The changes brought forth regarding the sources do not create special difficulties
for the Hungarian and German research. The Romanian one faces a dilemma: if the
practice of translating the documents integrally is continued, the linguistic changes and
the quantitative explosion will cause in no time an extremely reduced accessibility to the
Transylvanian informational basis for the XVI-XVIII centuries. If instead the Romanian
translation is dropped, the linguistic barrier would be maintained, together with the
question: which is the viable method so that Romanian historiography could participate to
the research of the Transylvanian past through a complete knowledge of the sources? The

8
problem demands an urgent solution, because the most disadvantaged part in this
equation is the Romanian science. Not observing this problem is probably the outcome of
a XIX century mentality, having as a trait the amalgam of political and scientific
objectives.
The editing of the sources dating from the period of the principality (1542-1711),
which was favored earlier by the Hungarian historians, has probably suffered the most
during the decennials of the dictatorship. The great series of publications, initiated in the
XIX century, which presented the documents regarding the political history of the
Transylvanian state, were canceled after 1918. Only the Székely diploma archive was
resumed in 1983, due to the fact that the political power of that time has found
appropriate to consider the Szeklers as a separate nationality. The modern republication in
our country of the rich narrative sources of the époque could not even make it on the
agenda. Despite serious expectations of the public, the minority’s population could not
read about its own history not even in the works of XVII century historians. The
publication of works written by great cultural personalities, in the White Books series
from Kriterion publishing house was still possible. Thus the republication of the most
important memorialistical works was done abroad: the works by Wolfgang Bethlen, Ioan
Bethlen, Nicolae Bethlen, Ioan Cserei, Ioan Kemény and Ioan Szalárdi first appeared in
Budapest, Georg Kraus being published in New York and Budapest.
The most beneficial activity was that of David Prodan and his team, who in the
decennials of communist dictatorship published economical sources, especially wealth
rolls from regions with a significant Romanian population. After his death the follow up
of his work was made harder by the generalized passivity, besides the lack of knowledge
of the Hungarian language in which most of the documents are written. As to the
narrative sources, there are signs of a fortunate change. I could recall here the initiative of
Stefania Gáll Mihailescu and Ferenc Pap, as well as the fact that the viable method to
make the historical sources accessible for the Romanian researchers is to publish in
digests the large quantities of documentary sources and the narrative sources in accurate
translations. Some of the most important narrative works have already been published:
Prince Ioan Kemény’s autobiography and the memories of Nicolae Bethlen, both
translated and annotated by Ferenc Pap and with an introductory study by Camil
Mureşanu. Also the texts of a local importance were discovered through the Romanian
translation of the historical work of Ferenc Nagy Szabó, by Stefania Gáll Mihailescu,
together with reliable historical commentaries. The recalled volumes represent a high
standard in the editing of historical texts, the Romanian translation being a source with
almost the same status as the original.
The hope of resuming the publication of the documentary sources from the
époque was born. After 1918, neither the Romanian research, nor the Hungarian one had
an elaborate and feasible conception regarding the editing of these sources. The
Transylvanian Museum Society had formulated a plan of action in 1942, but the
dissolution of this society after a short while and the confiscation of its collections
brought it to naught. After the political changes in 1989, the possibilities of resuming
these preoccupations were created. The Museum Society began to supply the gaps dating
more than a century ago. A number of young researchers were trained, in the last years, to
accomplish the planned goals and today the rhythm of the work is satisfying. We are
referring to the effort of completing the destroyed princely archive, to make accessible to

9
the scientific public, in form of digests, the protocols of the Alba Iulia diocesan council
and of the Cluj-Mănăştur convent, and also the Librii Regii (Royal Books) of the princes.
The editing of the latter volumes was initiated in 1977, with the support of the Apáczai,
Sapientia and Arany János foundations, in collaboration with the University of Miskolc.
In the year 2003 the first outcome of this project, the digests volume containing the
material issued by Ioan Sigismund and Cristofor Báthori appeared. During the editing,
three young researchers were trained for similar tasks. The material prior to the year 1603
and close to 1000 digests from the XVI century protocols of the Alba Iulia diocesan
council were published. The same method was used with the XVI-XVII century shirely
and municipal protocols. The results are published in the Erdélyi Történelmi Adatok
(Transylvanian Historical Data) series initiated in 1855, and resumed in 1945 and 1993,
being interrupted in 1950. The series was launched again with the publication of the
Turda city protocols in 1993, followed by the protocols of the Alba Iulia princely
residence between 1588 and 1616, in 1998. The next year the editing of the shirely
protocols was begun, till 2003 the transcription of the Turda shire protocols dating from
1603-1700 being finalized. For the Hungarian historiography the same importance lies on
the sequel of the series Monumenta Comitialia Regni Transylvaniae or on the
correspondence of Mihály Teleki (1634-1690).
The Romanian historiography has a more serious approach to the sources only
beginning with the XVIII century research. However this view is marked by ethnic
preferences. The political interest had given way to two publication series, edited by the
“George Bariş” Institute of History of the Romanian Academy from Cluj-Napoca. These
series, which had been coordinated by Ştefan Pascu till his death, aim at editing the
sources regarding Horea’s 1784 uprising, as well as the Transylvanian documents of the
1848-1849 revolution. Nine volumes of sources have been published between 1982 and
1993 about Horea’s uprising: from the series of narrative sources three volumes came out,
since 1984 and form the documentary series, organized according to the shires, six
volumes were published till 1993, the seventh being published in 2001.
The situation of the 1848-1849 diploma archives is more encouraging. Between
1977 and 1992 five volumes of documents came out, that go until the 4 th of June 1848,
followed in 1998 by the sixth volume, containing sources dated between the 5th and the
16th of June, also followed by a seventh volume. The still stand of these series, also
having ethnical connotations, illustrates the actual circumstance and the Transylvanian
perspectives of the editions of sources. Besides the more and more conspicuous passivity,
there are also additional hardships, because half of the exiguously financing is spent on
the integral translation of the documents. It would be more appropriate for the Romanian
research to focus these efforts on the knowledge of the German archive material, created
by the central authorities from Vienna – the ultimate decision makers in the XVIII
century. Giving one example is enough for illustrating that there is a viable way, different
from the general one, for publishing sources previous to the XIX century. We refer to the
three posthumous volumes of Professor Francisc Pall (1911-1992), accomplished in
Germany and published in very good conditions in 1997, which contain the papers of the
Transylvanian Greek-Catholic bishop Inochentie Micu-Klein from the years 1745-1768.
Along with the multiplication of second half XIX century Romanian sources, the
reticent attitude of the Romanian historiography towards Transylvanian historical sources
deeply changes. A team of good researchers, that besides cultivating national and

10
cultural-literary history also became good specialists in the publication of sources, was
formed in the editing process of the documents regarding the activity of the political and
cultural actors from the national movement. Although this interest was directed on one’s
own political and cultural past, in the ethnic sense, this was beyond doubt a great
incentive for the formation of a more moderate image, therefore more real, on the whole
Transylvanian history.
The Hungarian research regarding XVIII-XIX century sources would be
interested in the publishing of the correspondence of political and cultural personalities,
in series comparable to the Fontes one, initiated by Kuno Klebelsberg. But the adequate
staff and the necessary material conditions lack. Transylvanian Hungarian research can
rely instead on a permanent support from Hungary. However, it would be necessary that
the spontaneous interest towards Transylvanian problems be directed at the remedy of the
negative effects of isolation and the solving of the most urgent tasks. During the next
decennials a generation shift will occur and even if this period will not be so difficult as
the one lived by many strata of the Hungarian community in the last fifty years.
The editorial plan regarding at least the Transylvanian sources, should be brought
to a common denominator and the tasks of the domain demand a common hierarchy.
Transylvanian research has, without doubt, the special task of offering to the interested
historiographies an actualized and more accurate guide on the archival material kept on
the territory of Romania. Public institutions have this king of guides, but they do not
inform on the content and organization of the conserved material, but more on the
Romanian references. Therefore it would be desirable that these official publications be
completed by exploratory researches and be published in order to be accessible to the
scientific community. Although under the communist regime a great part of the churchly
archive was confiscated and kept under the custody of the state even nowadays, their
editing in order to make them more accessible to science remain integrally the task of the
churches. For example the old and huge archives of the Roman-Catholic bishopric from
Oradea and of the diocesan council have lost their inner order due to their relocation.
Since decennials these collections are almost unsearchable and no informative material
destined for the specialists was published. It is rejoicing that the historical churches, with
a considerable financial effort, have modernized the equipment of the archives and library
that remained in their custody and transformed them in real scientific institutions.
The archive of the Roman-Catholic bishopric from Alba Iulia keeps the
documents in deposits equipped with one of the most modern furniture among the
Romanian archives. The central archive of the Unitarian church from Cluj-Napoca and
the library and the remaining archive of the Roman-Catholic diocese from Oradea were
equipped with new and modern furniture. The destiny of the archives belonging to the
Saxon Lutheran church is similar. The central collection from Sibiu, created out of the
archives of depopulated parishes and equipped with the latest instruments, has
transformed itself in a modern German institution for historical research. The archival
material that remained in the custody of the churches is at the disposal of the researchers
in better conditions. The cataloguing of the collections is finalized or towards finalizing.
The churches have assumed a role in the publication of their own archival sources and in
their historiographical editing. In the case of the so-called monographies of Transylvanian
localities and parishes, the appraisals regarding their qualities and defects will be made
only for those written in Hungarian, these observations being characteristic for the whole

11
type. Firstly, the professional level of these publications is very diverse. There are
valuable scientific performances, but also only good intentions present than
professionalism. One should mention that, among publications of this type, the most
accurate are the ones that contain the lists of the students from the well-known colleges
and were published as a result of the collaboration between the Transylvanian experts and
the specialized institutions from Hungary.
An even more sensible problem of historiography is the situation of private
(family) archives on the Romanian territory. Hungarian research is peculiarly attained by
the unordered character of these archives, the access to this archival heritage being
practically blocked. The fulfillment of the special role of this historiography, as well as
the accomplishment of a part of the domain’s tasks on the national level, is blocked by
limitations of such type. The professional and detailed cataloguing of the private archives
that were confiscated by the communist regime is in the interest of all historiographies
interested in Transylvania. We have today only fifty years old information about the
available collections of documents and the archives that were in the custody of the
Transylvanian Museum Society since 1883. A remedial to this situation was proposed
along with the revival of the archival series of the Transylvanian Society Museum. After
presenting the personal archive of Wesselényi Miklós jr. (1796-1850), followed by the
archive guide of the Wass family that contained a rich material of medieval diplomas.
The publishing of the Benkö József (1740-1814) correspondence and the letters regarding
Teleki Sámuel’s bibliophilly (1739-1822), the founder of the Târgu Mureş library, under
the communist dictatorship, clearly marks the possibilities and the limits that determined
the Hungarian research concerning written sources. These publications, as well as other
volumes of the research done by the minorities edited in hostile conditions firstly indicate
that the most efficient resolution of scientific tasks is done through the collaboration
between national and international specialists. Secondly, I wish to underline that the
publication of cultural and literary documents as well as the correspondence, should be
promoted to the outmost extent, beginning with the sources dating from the XVII century.
Scientific objectives already lose their influence through the exploration of the
rich and complex archivist heritage dating from the absolutist and dualist period, these
activities being determined by different editorial, political or market interests. It was
recommendable that the year 1848 be elected as the limit between the historical periods,
concerning the problems of researching historical sources. Beginning with this period, the
goals, methods and themes of the historical interpretation are changing, the interests of
science being sometimes totally neglected.
Out of the three historical provinces of Romania (Moldova, Ţara Românească and
Transylvania), the latter detains the most significant quantity of historical sources, being
also the most complex regarding quality. This situation in return is not reflected in the
interest manifested by the historiography. A significant cause of this circumstance has
probably the old erroneous reflex that considers Latin, German and Hungarian sources as
unimportant and trifling for the Romanian history. The XIX century history had quite the
opposite opinion, and also nowadays David Prodan and his collaborators, seize the
unique potential offered by the Transylvanian sources for the knowledge of the past of the
Romanian nation.
A secondary cause for the chagrined situation of the historical sources is the
myopic policy of the communist power regarding scientific research. By dissolving the

12
traditional institutions of the minorities and neglecting the domains that they cultivated,
the specialists belonging to these minorities were obliged to find new methods and
solutions for promoting their specific interests. The German as well as the Hungarian
historiography, resumed to activity of publishing the sources, partially in the mother
country. The crisis caused by the disappearance of the old generation of researchers
maintains itself only in the case of Romanian research, which is at the beginning of its
recovery.
The scientific researches belonging to the Carpathian space were condemned by
history to collaborate with one another. This imperative is valid also in the case of editing
the common heritage of the historical sources. The decennial development of the
Romanian-German collaboration is a fortunate case, as we can also see from the results.
The archive of the Saxon church could also be transformed in a research institution, thus
assuring the framework for future projects.
After the 1990 reorganization of the Transylvanian Museum Society the
Romanian-Hungarian collaboration evolved positively. The possibility that the
gravitational centre of Hungarian researches regarding Transylvania be relocated in this
province and resuming its traditional position in the framework was created through the
revival of the museum. As a matter of fact the Museum Society is statutory obliged to
collaborate with the Romanian and Saxon institutions. The Romanian and German
Transylvanian population will rightfully expect that their future scientific research deal
with their own past and its written sources. And these sources are the most inaccessible
resource for the Romanian research. Phenomena of crisis could be solved quicker and
easier if the German and Hungarian research potential, the institutions of the minorities
and the interest toward self-knowledge would be systematically integrated in the national
research.
Transylvanian history of science offers numerous examples not only for
controversies, but also for collaborations and reciprocal help among Romanian,
Hungarian and German historians. The respect and appreciation of the Romanian
specialists for Andrei Veress (1868-1953) and Lajos Kelemen (1877-1963), who were
archivists at the Transylvanian Museum Society, are well known. These positive results
were the outcome of fair professional relations. In the present situation, Romanian and
Hungarian sciences need to collaborate at a higher level. The main issue is whether there
will be a professional relation between the Romanian Academy and the Transylvanian
Museum Society similar to the one between the latter and the Hungarian Academy. The
quick solution to the crisis in the research of Transylvanian historical sources that affects
scientifically three nations depends I guess of the birth of such collaboration and on the
evolution of Romanian-German relations. The failure of these collaborations will
maintain durable obstacles in the human sciences.
- How can the writing of a trans-ethnic history of Transylvania configure itself
and how desirable can become such an approach, under the conditions of the crisis in
the Transylvanian historiographical researches and of so many obstacles created by
the inherited mentalities?
- My whole scientific career dedicated to the history of Transylvania binds me to
identify and present correctly the problems that persist in the research on the historical
sources of this province. Of course, my experience protects me from imagining the mere
fact of making observations will “miraculously” produce essential and immediate

13
changes. But I am convinced that the diagnostic of problems is the first step to any kind
of amelioration. My own responsibility in the improvement of the existing crisis in the
Romanian, Hungarian and German speaking Transylvanian researches is stressed by the
fact that both the Romanian and the Hungarian Academy appreciated my activity by
appointing me as a honorary member. The two scientific societies demand from me not to
be silent about important problems, even if not asked, when I see the fundamental
interests of science endangered. The present situation of the research and publishing of
Transylvanian historical sources is such a case.
Due to the present crisis, declaring a wish for cooperation is not enough, there is
still the need of concrete actions, in order to change the centennial reflexes into firm
convictions. Medievalistics would be the best segment for making the first step in the
domain of exploring historical sources, this period being more distanced and neutral from
the interests of the present. If researchers with different ethnical backgrounds will use the
same documentary fund, as well as appropriate methods, then we could hope that the
opinions regarding interpretations will get closer.
This intensely debated problem is emphasized by the fact that the research
conditions of that period were lagging beyond those of our central European neighbors
and also beyond actual research standards. Due to the fact that the publishing of the
sources slowed down, only the boosting of the archive researches could modernize
Transylvanian historiography. The attempts in this direction fail due to the obstacles
inherited from the dictatorship’s époque, which perceive the archive as a inner security
problem and not as a scientific institution destined to inform the public. Not only the
inner evolution of historiography is paralyzed by the situation from the Transylvanian
archives, but also from the countries from which we are obliged to request access to the
documentary fund. In this sense the improvement of the situation is still in progress till
the specialists will determine the research priorities in accordance with the existing
realities, aiming to study not only the cohabitant nations’ past, but of the country as a
whole. Therefore the crisis now perceptible in the preoccupations regarding
Transylvanian historical sources seems abiding, because the mentality characterized by
indifference is amplified by the crisis of specialists and the chronic material penury.
I do not think necessary it is adequate to insist on the means and connotations of
this situation. All the suggestions I dared to propose concerned only Hungarian
historiography. To claim these objectives and measures for the Romanian and German
research, except the ones that touch the Hungarian one, should be left to the competency
of the corresponding specialists.
It has become obvious that the premises of a modern research on the history of
Transylvania is the close cooperation of all interested parties, more precisely of
Romanian, Hungarian and German historiographies. The inheritors of the archival
material collected along centuries of living together need a reciprocal access to each
other’s part of the common patrimony, as well as the publication and knowledge of the
results. But even if the repressive methods of the Bolshevik dictatorships could only
silence or publish this lucid finding, then its acceptance now by all the interested parties
represents an imperative that cannot be postponed. History itself condemns the
researchers of the Carpathians nations at a real cooperation, if they want to keep the pace
of modernization. Anyone can easily realize that the actual stage of the historiographies
of this space is regressing rather than progressing, due to the formations of nationalisms

14
and of bitter controversies. Fearing the public opinion, only a small number of historians
recognized and unequivocally expressed this fact. Among them stood the departed
professor Pál Engel who manifested his concrete wish for a real cooperation.
I consider that the elaboration of a history of Transylvania, which should
encompass the past of all ethnic communities who lived here and to describe the role
played by each, is desirable. But knowing the actual situation, the lack of adequate social,
political and professional conditions, the accomplishment of such a history will only
remain, along more than one generation, a challenge.
- Which are the impediments of such an approach?
- in the way of such a work of synthesis is getting not only the lack of preliminary
modern studies or the methodology and different development degrees in the Romanian,
Hungarian or Saxon researches, but the fact that not all the parties accounts for some
inevitable concrete data and the methodological exigencies that follow. I am referring to
strictly professional problems raised by the fact that the older historical Romanian
sources before 1800 refer in the ratio of 80-85% to Transylvania, are written with Latin
characters and are radically different from the informative material treating Moldova or
Muntenia, which belong the territory of Byzantine-Cyrillic writing. The valorification of
these different Transylvanian sources, of the raw material of every historical research
presupposes knowledge and methods which are specific to everybody who scientifically
presents using modern methods the history of Transylvania.
Beyond the difficulties related to the language, the impediments caused by the
fact that this huge documentary heritage was born in a culture of writing different from
the other parts of the country and in other governmental and juridical administrative
structure must be transgressed. More precisely, these sources can be competently
capitalized only by the experts in the history of the former Hungarian kingdom and of the
principality of Transylvania. But in our country these specialists lack. The number of
specialists familiarized with the problems of the history of Saxons has also decreased. As
a consequence of the massive emigration of the German population, we will slowly arrive
to the point at which the access to the information contained in the old German texts
written in Gothic will constitute a problem. There are more preliminary conditions whose
accomplishment is necessary for elaborating a modern synthesis of Transylvanian history.
Till then the interested historical sciences have a long way to go. The task is not easy, but
also not impossible if there is the will to do it. In this case also a lot of time and work are
demanded. The idea we are talking about now remains a simple wish, without a
professional basis, to the point serious will lacks.
In the actual circumstances I consider it premature to discuss details, like the
demands of a supranational approach in the new projected synthesis. I guess this could be
about the so-called public history part, about presenting the events, the history of
economics, of governance and so on. I consider instead that a more urgent task is the
necessary professional training, the serious confrontation with the above mentioned
impediments and the lucid educational work so that the new generation of researchers
could take this road hoping to become successful.

15