Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 36. (1983)
SCHÖDL, Günter: Zur Forschungsdiskussion über alldeutsch-deutschnationale Politik in der Habsburgermonarchie und im Deutschen Reich
Rezensionen 479 Hence (T. argues) Transylvania reached a stage in political evolution intermediate between feudal centralization and full-blown absolutism. Its rulers were answerable in no direct way to their subjects: time and again we are shown how few administrative or political controls the nobility could actually exercise. The crucial decision of 1656 for example, when George II Rákóczi resolved upon his calamitous intervention in Poland, was taken before the Council could submit more restrained proposals; and even the less energetic Apafi (1662—90) had a much firmer grip on affairs than the received view of him allows. Yet the feudal order in the counties remained untouched, as did the corporate privileges of Saxons, Szeklers, and others. Equally obviously, Transylvania’s princes faced the sanction of the ultimately elective character of their rule. The period saw five different dynasties on the throne, besides several short challenges from other families, and T. might have written more about the question of clientage and the administrative implications of a transfer of power. T’s second major contribution lies in the area of social history. On these pages we can pursue the hesitant formation of a trained and predominantly commoner bureaucratic intelligentsia in Transylvania. The process was not a linear one. Zsigmond Jakó, the only previous scholar to ventilate the issue seriously, suggested that the sixteenth century saw the emergence of a secular administrative class whose prospects were then blighted by noble revival after 1600. T’s fuller evidence lends qualified support to that view; at all events it is clear that successful princely servants tended to remain vulnerable unless they could assimilate into county society. It also appears that their cultural role diminished sharply after the age of humanism, which chancery officials did much to sustain throughout the sixteenth century. T’s conclusions about the social and cultural background of Transylvanian officialdom can be found in a German version in the Études historiques hongroises 1 (Budapest 1980) pp. 255—275. It is a pity there is no résumé here of the other findings for a non-reader of Hungarian, since this irreproachably scholarly and scrupulously objective study examines a subject of real international significance. It has self-imposed limitations: the relation between central and local authorities falls outside its scope; nor is the relation between Council and diet clearly expounded; army and judiciary receive short shrift (the indefatigable author announces [p. 99 n.] another monograph, already completed, on the evolution of the Transylvanian legal system). Yet this book tells us much about Transylvania’s intriguing experiment in a kind of ‘Absolutismus auf Kündigung’ which deserves to be reflected upon by foreign experts in the political and constitutional history of early-modern European states. Robert J. W. Evans (Oxford)
