Search

What happens when nation-builders in an independent state imagine themselves to have fallen behind kinfolk living under imperial oppression, and how does this affect their vision of a future of national unity? This paper explores the shapes that critical self-comparison could take among Romanians in the Kingdom of Romania around the turn of the twentieth century by considering three interconnected vignettes. First, it outlines the context in which politicized notions of mutual interdependence between the Kingdom and Transylvania allowed for comparison as self-criticism to take root and gain salience in the public sphere. It explores the implications that comparison as self-criticism had on ascribing agency and apportioning blame for causes of the disparity between state and kinfolk. Second, it examines two Transylvanian travelogues produced by major political and cultural figures on the fringes of the Romanian establishment, and, in a reflexive move, contrasts their politics of comparison. Third, it offers a grassroots perspective on how the travelogues of teachers and priests, as rank-and-file nation-builders, expressed these topoi. The article contributes to the nascent trend of considering historical comparisons in actors' own terms, and as historical processes unto themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper outlines the historical context in which, during the First World War, the Romanian Legion in Italy was created in June 1918, at Avezzano. Led by Brigadier General Vittorio Zuppelli, the Legion consisted of Romanian prisoners of war who had previously belonged to the Austro- Hungarian army. The three Romanian companies integrated into the Italian army distinguished themselves in the battles that led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian forces and brought about the end of the war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research is focused on a document often left aside by the Romanian historiography - the 1887 memorandum project elaborated by Ioan Slavici. The paper can be considered a forerunner of the 1892 memorandum and represents the result of a deep compromise between the real political ideas of its author and the Romanian National Party's official agenda. Thus, shortly after its elaboration, Slavici resigned from the leadership of the national movement and never again made mention of the project's ideas. Alongside the description and analysis of the document's content, the conclusions of our article explore the possibility of alternative explanations for the strong pro-Habsburg position of the writer, presenting the opportunity of relating his political imaginary with some recurrent psychological behavior identified by one of his recent biographers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]