Drăgan, Ioan (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 2003-2004 (7-8. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)
Cosmin Popa-Gorjanu: Feudalismul românesc?
feudalismul românesc? 51 production, vassalage, immunity). The serious distortions caused by a rigid application of theory resulted in a wave of criticism and reaction in the 1970s, when several historians like Manole Neagoe and Dinu C. Giurescu questioned the conclusions of previous historians, mainly regarding the existence of a period of feudal fragmentation in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in Wallachia and Moldova. They carried out the necessary work of juxtaposing conclusions from the works imbued with ideology with the actual preserved evidence. Thus, they were able to amend many of the allegations of the historical literature of the 1950s and 1960s. There was no feudal anarchy in the Romanian principalities in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, vassalage among the Romanian boyars cannot be demonstrated on the basis of the evidence, immune holdings formed only about 10 to 15 percent of the properties and therefore could not seriously threaten the power of the prince, and about half of the total number of villages consisted offree communities. The next section of the article presents the opinions and arguments of Elizabeth Brown and Susan Reynolds regarding the constructs of feudalism and vassalage. The conclusion of the article is that the historians trying to define Romanian feudalism relied on a model of non-Marxist feudalism before the 1950s. After the 1950s, Romanian historical writing was obliged to conform to political demands, shaping history according to Marxist and Stalinist theories. Today, students of history can read a multitude of definitions and theories about Romanian feudalism as well as criticism against them. The article argues that in light of the discoveries of Reynolds, Brown, and others, Romanian medievalists need to reevaluate the definitions and terminology they employ regarding medieval society and explain the way they use 'feudal”.
