Diaconescu, Marius (szerk.): Mediaevalia Transilvanica 1998 (2. évfolyam, 1. szám)
Stat
‘Regnum Transilvanum” 151 role not to disturb the king Bela IV’s moving in this region, but it provoked the interruption of some relationship between Transylvania and western world which had been closed in the first part of the century. The fear for another possible Mongol attack was felt, also in the sixth decade of the 13th century; this meant for Transylvania a period of stoppage and isolation. 2) “The Transylvanian Dukedom” of the young king Stephen V (1257- 1270) constituted the epoch of a general development of Transylvania. “Bicephaly” characterized this period and had, as a consequence, the formation of some institutional structures, which assured the integration of all privileged territories and communities not subjugated to a voivodal control into a political common system. From this point of view the political regime of Dukedom represented the model for the Regnum Transilvanum’s epoch. Also, in the Stephen V period, the “privatization” of the royal lands was done, and a political, military, ecclesiastic local elite was formed; its central figures were the resistance’s heroes from Codlea/Feketeholm. Its representatives (e.g. the bishop Peter, 1270- 1307) played an important role in the events from the end of 13th century. Stephen V did not intend to contribute at the consolidation of Transylvanian autonomy. After 1270, the whole Dukedom’s superstructure was broken up, but the authority’s officials were assimilated to the royal court. The unexpected death of this great king (1272) re-opened some “wounds”, which had not had time to get better, pushing the whole Hungary into a stronger and longer crisis than all others before. 3) The crisis during the Ladislau IV‘s reign had two stages of manifestation (1272-1279 and 1285-1290); between them, there was a period of relative stability when the king succeeded to assume and wield prerogatives. In the first period, after a series of confused events, Transylvania fell under the control of the members of the noble family Csak, which owned the voivodal dignity and a series of important properties in province. They lost their positions in the agitated year 1277, when Transylvania faced a big Saxon’s revolt. After another series of events, which culminated with the noble revolt from 1279, the voivodal role was given to a king’s confidential man, Roland Borsa, who distinguished himself in the battle from Hood against Cumans. He would pass on the enemy’s side after 1287- 1288, being considered one of the main artificers of the Regnum’s political regime. The last king of Arp ad Dynasty, Andrew III, faulted in his effort to recuperate the lost territory during his predecessors, in spite of his political tact. In the second part of the article, the author analyses the most important factors of the very complicated political intern picture of Transylvania (a. the Nobility, b. the Church, c. the Saxons, d. the Szeklers and e. the Romanians) showing the positive and negative contribution that all this factors brought to the Regnum ’s political regime. a. The Transylvanian nobility, representing the political elite, which played the decisive role in the articulation and training of the Regnum’s regime. Interested to keep its positions against the intrusion of the great “oligarchi” grouped around the royal court, this middle-class provincial nobility did not want to give up the advantages taken from its belonging to a powerful state, the only one which could guarantee its dominated position in Transylvania. Consequently, its action was bivalent. In the time of oligarchi’s omnipotence, the nobility promoted the autonomy’s institutions; later, to avoid the eastern alliance and civil wars’ disadvantages, the nobility determined the voivode Ladislau Kan to make an agreement with the king Carol Robert (1310), refusing then to come together at the
