| QUOTE (Dénes @ April 22, 2011 12:16 pm) | | QUOTE (Valium @ April 22, 2011 12:07 pm) | | Vasile Lupu (...) had early ambitions of "unifications" of the three principates which will form latter the romanian state: Moldavia, Muntenia and Transylvania. (...) his influence contributed to establishing of important religious personalities, including in Transylvania, working in this way for romanian cause. |
As it was highlighted repeatedly, the notions of "nationality" and "ethnicity" were "invented" at the time of the French Revolution of 1789-1799. Better said, these notions became important only from the XIXth Century on, particularly starting with the revolutions that swept Europe in the mid-XIXth Century.
Therefore, one cannot speak of "unification" of the three "Rumanian" Principates, as it is nonsense. Gen. Dénes
|
Hungarian transylvanian nobility acused Horea, the leader of moţi people uprising from 1784, that he wanted to create a new Dacian Empire, consisting of all three provinces inhabited by romanians: Transylvania, Muntenia and Moldova.
The acusation was not founded on facts, it was invented by hungarian transylvanian nobility in order to make sure his death penalty by austrians (Transylvania was ruled by Austria at that time).
So, idea of nationality and union of romanian provinces was not invented in XIXth century or by the french revolution from 1789. It is atested at least by this hungarian afirmation during 1784 Horea's uprising and was well BEFORE french revolution. A letter from 13 november 1784, written by the administrators of Catholic Bishopric (Episcopia Catolică) said that the romanians atacked the local "şpan" saying that they wanted "să stârpească întreg neamul unguresc" (because the majority of nobility in Transylvania was hungarian, very soon after the uprising started, the programe changed from a social one to a national [or at least ethnic] one).
Actually, the programe of the moţi uprising was well advanced as ideas, at least comparable to the french revolution one. Giving the fact that the programe came from the part of a uneducated romanian peasant (in reality it seems that Horea spoke at least german, hungarian and latin, excepting his mother language, romanian), it is remarcable. Here is the programe of Horea's uprising, 1784:
1. Ca nobilul comitat dimpreună cu toţi posesorii şi cu toată seminţia lor să pună jurământul sub cruce!
2. Nobilime (nemeşime) să nu mai fie, ci fiecare nobil, dacă va putea să capete vreo slujbă împărătească, să trăiască din aceea.
3. Stăpânii nobili să părăsească odată pentru totdeauna moşiile nobilitare.
4. Că dânşii (nobilii) încă să plătească dările întocmai ca poporul contribuabil plebeu.
5. Pământurile nemeşeşti să se împărţească între poporul plebeu, în înţelesul poruncii ce o va da Maiestatea Sa Împăratul.
So, short version of the english translation would be: no more nobility, all nobles to aply to get a job and live from salary (leveling the social organisation of the society) and agrarian reform (the lands of the nobles to be given to the commoners). Except point one from the french 1789 programme (5 years AFTER Horea's uprising), which is generally common for both events, Horea's programe is far more advanced as he claims agrarian reform, which the french don't.
The french Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789:
1. Men are born free and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only on public utility.
2. The aim of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
3. The sources of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no body, no individual can exercise authority that does not proceed from it in plain terms.
4. Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others; accordingly, the exercise of the rights of each man has no limits except those that secure the enjoyment of these same rights to the other members of society. These limits can be determined only by law.
5. The law has only the rights to forbid such actions as are injurious to society. Nothing can be forbidden that is not interdicted by the law, and no one can be constrained to do that which it does not order.
6. Law is the expression of the general will. All citizens have the right to take part personally, or by their representatives, and its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, art equally eligible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacities, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.
7. No man can be accused, arrested, or detained, except in the cases determined by the law and according to the forms it has prescribed. Those who procure, expedite, execute, or cause arbitrary orders to be executed, ought to be punished: but every citizen summoned were seized in virtue of the law ought to render instant obedience; he makes himself guilty by resistance.
8. The law ought only to establish penalties that are strict and obviously necessary, and no one can be punished except in virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offense and legally applied.
9. Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced guilty, if it is thought indispensable to arrest him, all severity that may not be necessary to secure his person ought to be strictly suppressed by law.
10. No one should be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not upset the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man; every citizen can then freely speak, write, and print, subject to responsibility for the abuse of this freedom in the cases is determined by law.
12. The guarantee of the rights of man and citizen requires a public force; this force then is instituted for the advantage of all and not for the personal benefit of those to whom it is entrusted.
13. A general tax is indispensable for the maintenance of the public force and for the expenses of administration; it ought to be equally apportioned among all citizens according to their means.
14. All the citizens have a right to ascertain, by themselves or by their representatives, the necessity of the public tax, to consent to it freely, to follow the employment of it, and to determine the quota, the assessment, the collection, and the duration of it.
15. Society has the right to call for an account of his administration by every public agent.
16. Any society in which the guarantee of the rights is not secured, or the separation of powers not determined, has no constitution at all.
17. Property being a sacred to and inviolable right, no one can be deprived of it, unless illegally established public necessity evidently demands it, under the condition of a just and prior indemnity. |
