A GAME OF RHETORIC.

TRANSYLVANIAN REGIONAL IDENTITIES IN

MEDIEVAL WALLACHIAN SOURCES

MARIAN COMAN

The history of medieval regions and regionalism has become ever more
fashionable in recent decades, as witnessed by the numerous conferences,
articles, monographs, and even publishing series dedicated to this topic.
Undoubtedly, this trend was stirred by the scholarly desire to shift from the
state-centred view that influenced historiography for more than two centuries,
as well as by an increasing interest in regional identity formation and
dissolution. Thus, the field of regional history has been considerably enriched
by innovative approaches that not only scrutinized the administrative history of
regions, but also explored their economic, cultural or social cohesion. Scholars
focused mainly on the internal building processes of regions, while the topic of
their external perception was rather underplayed. The main reason seems to
have been methodological: since any description of the ‘other’ was viewed as a
mirroring of oneself, the outside perception of a region was considered to
reflect the viewer’s world-view more than the region itself. Hence, a full range
of possibilities was more significant for the viewers’ own identities than for the
territories they described, from inventing imaginary regions to deliberately
ignoring genuine ones. However, this clear-cut differentiation between the
viewer-subject and the region-object, although it certainly amends some
previous methodological faults, introduces in its turn some potential flaws. First
and foremost, this approach fails to notice that regions are not passive objects,
only used by external viewers to reinforce and better to define their own
identity. Instead, regional identities are often conceived and endorsed by a
certain socio-political elite. Thus, the external awareness of a region is the
outcome of a dialogue, involving not only the viewers’ mind frame and self-
identity, but also a certain socio-political regional elite and its aspiration to gain
a certain status. The main contention of this article is that the scholarship of
regionalism could be significantly enriched by assessing the regional elites’
success in conveying a sense of local identity to external viewers, mostly to
their neighbours. The present article, a case-study of the external awareness of
regional identity in late medieval period, aims to illustrate the new insights, as
well as the methodological challenges, of this approach.
This article aims to analyse the Wallachian perception of Transylvanian
identity in the late medieval period, roughly from the mid-fourteenth to the


PhD, “Nicolae Iorga” Institute of History, Bucharest, Romania.
Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica, 16/II (2012): 87-104
|MARIAN COMAN

mid-sixteenth century. Thus, I will examine the dialogue between the two
socio-political elites, the Wallachian and Transylvanian, looking into the
rhetoric of identity.1 My analysis will exclusively focus on Transylvanian
identity, although, as I shall further argue, Wallachian identity is ubiquitously
present. The corpus of primary sources under investigation consists of all extant
Wallachian documents from the late medieval period, mostly issued by the
rulers’ chanceries.2 The chronological limits of my research, from the mid-

1 Although there is a sstantial historical literature on medieval Wallachian-Transylvanian

relationships, the sject of identity has seldom been approached, historians focusing instead on the
political and economic aspects. Thus, previous research mainly explored the political links
between Wallachia and the Hungarian kings, connections between Wallachia and different
Transylvanian s-regions, such as Făgăraş and Haţeg, or Wallachian political and economic ties
with the Transylvanian Saxons. Two other lines of approach which have been thoroughly
investigated concern the bonds between Wallachian and Transylvanian Romanians, as well as the
‘Transylvanian policy’ of a specific Wallachian ruler (such as Mircea the Elder, Vlad Dracul, Vlad
the Impaler, Radu the Fair, Basarab the Young, Radu the Great or Neagoe Basarab).
2 I have not included in my analysis the Wallachian chroniclers dating from the end of the

seventeenth century, although they probably have a sixteenth-century core. I have also left out of
my analysis the late medieval Wallachian inscriptions, as I find them irrelevant to my research
topic. Instead, I have comprehensively investigated collections of Wallachian charters and letters.
The internal charters are edited in the B series of the Documenta Romaniae Historica (henceforth
abbreviated DRH B). The first eight volumes of the series, including all extant medieval
Wallachian internal charters up to 1580, were edited by Petre P. Panaitescu, Damaschin Mioc,
Ştefan Ştefănescu, Olimpia Diaconescu, Marieta Chiper and Ioana Constantinescu (Bucharest:
Editura Academiei, 1966-1996). For the documents issued during the next thirteen years (1580-
1593), the only available edition is Documente privind istoria României, B series (henceforth
abbreviated DIR B), which unfortunately does not include the Slavonic originals but only their
translation. The fifth and sixth volumes of this collection were edited by Ion Ionaşcu, L.
Lǎzǎrescu-Ionescu, Barbu Câmpina, Eugen Stǎnescu and David Prodan (Bucharest: Ed.
Academiei, 1952-1953). The Wallachian documents sent to different Transylvanian recipients,
mostly to the Saxon cities of Braşov and Sibiu, are significantly more dispersed in different
collections: see Ioan Bogdan, Documente şi regeste privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Rumâneşti cu
Braşovul şi Ungaria în secolul XV şi XVI [Documents and calendars concerning the relations of
Wallachia with Brașov and Hungary in the 15th-16th centuries], (Bucharest: I.V. Socecu, 1902)
(henceforth abbreviated Bogdan, Documente şi regeste); Ioan Bogdan, Documente privitoare la
relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Braşovul şi cu Ţara Ungurească în secolele XV şi XVI [Documents
concerning the relations of Wallachia with Braşov and Hungary in the 15th-16th centuries],
(Bucharest: Carol Göbl, 1905), (henceforth abbreviated Bogdan, Documente); Silviu Dragomir,
“Documente nouă privitoare la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti cu Sibiul în secolele XV şi XVI” [New
documents concerning the relations of Wallachia with Sibiu in the 15th-16th centuries], Anuarul
Institutului de Istorie Naţională din Cluj 4 (1926-1927); Stoica Nicolaescu, Documente slavo-
române cu privire la relaţiile Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Ardealul în secolele XV şi XVI
[Romanian-Slavonic documents concerning the relations of Wallachia and Moldavia with
Transylvania in the 15th-16th centuries], (Bucharest: Lito-tipografia L. Motzătzeanu, 1905); Petre
P. Panaitescu, Documente slavo-române din Sibiu (1470-1653) [Romanian-Slavonic documents
from Sibiu (1470-1653)], (Bucharest: Monitorul Oficial, 1938); Grigore G. Tocilescu, 534
documente istorice slavo-române din Ţara Românească şi Moldova privitoare la legăturile cu
Ardealul 1346-1603 [534 historical Romanian-Slavonic documents from Wallachia and Moldova

|88
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

fourteenth to the mid-sixteenth century, are unconventional, as they

approximately correspond to the first phase in the evolution of Wallachian
views on Transylvanian identity.3 I shall further argue that the previous, rather
limited, Wallachian awareness of Transylvanian regional identity broadened
considerably around mid-sixteenth century.
A major methodological challenge for any historian of late medieval
Wallachia to confront with is the linguistic diversity of the sources. Thus,
although the Wallachian internal charters were mostly issued in Slavonic,
external correspondence was written in Slavonic, Latin, Ottoman, Hungarian
and Romanian.4 This diversity causes difficulties to any inquiry on regional
identity, as usually every language comes with its own terminology. Moreover,
not all the documents issued in the name of a Wallachian ruler or noble were
written down by a Wallachian scribe. In consequence, the representation of
Transylvanian identity in late medieval Wallachian chancery sources is not
only linguistically conditioned, but also directly influenced by scribes of
different origin. To this already intricate image one should add the most
important distorting factor: the rhetorical use of identity. Wallachians’ views on

concerning the relations with Transylvania 1346-1603], (Bucharest: Librăria Cartea Românească,
1931); Andrei Veress, Acta et Epistolae Relationum Transylvaniae Hungariaeque cum Moldavia et
Valachia, vol. 1 (1468-1540), (Budapest: Typis Societatis Stephaneum Typographicae, 1914);
Andrei Veress, Documente privitoare la istoria Ardealului, Moldovei şi Ţării Româneşti. Acte şi
scrisori [Documents concerning the history of Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia. Deeds and
letters], vol. 1 (1527-1572), vol. 2 (1573-1584), vol. 3 (1585-1592), (Bucharest: Imprimeria
Naţionalǎ, 1929-1931). Finally, a sstantial number of Wallachian letters concerning Transylvania
are scattered in different volumes of the Hurmuzaki collection: Documente privitoare la istoria
românilor culese de Eudoxiu Hurmuzaki [Documents concerning the history of Romanians
collected by Eudoxiu Hurmuzaki], (henceforth abbreviated Hurmuzaki), mostly in volumes I/1,
I/2, II/1, II/2, II/3, edited by Nicolae Densuşianu (Bucharest: Socecu, 1890-1892), volume XI,
edited by Nicolae Iorga (Bucharest: Socec, 1900) and volume XV/1, edited by Nicolae Iorga
(Bucharest: Socec, 1911).
3 This chronological framework is flexible, as I also take into account a significant number of

sources from the second half of the sixteenth century. However, I have intentionally left out
sources from the last decade of the sixteenth century, mostly because of the atypical reign of
Michael the Brave (1593-1601), the first ruler of Wallachia to conquer and govern Transylvania.
4 The most valuable study on the Wallachian Slavonic medieval chancery is still that by Damian

P. Bogdan for the second introductory volume of DIR collection, see “Diplomatica slavo-română”
(Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1956): 6-225. See also Matei Cazacu, “La Chancellerie des
principautés valaque et moldave (XIVe-XVIIIe siécles),” in Christian Hannick (Ed.), Kanzleiwesen
und Kanzleisprachen im östlichen Europa, (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 1999), 87-127. For the Latin
chancery of medieval Wallachia see the insightful study written by Maria Holban, “Accente
personale şi influenţe locale în unele scrisori latineşti ale domnilor români” [Personal touches and
local influences in some Latin letters of the Romanian princes], Revista istorică 29 (1943): 51-86,
as well as Dumitru Ciurea, “La scritture latine nei paesi romeni,” Ephemeris Dacoromana 9
(1940): 181-241. For the Hungarian correspondence of the Wallachian princes see Jakó Klará’s
preliminary analysis in “Methodological Aspects Concerning the Investigation of the Hungarian
Correspondence of Wallachian and Moldavian Rulers,” Colloquia 8-9 (2000-2001): 106-121.

89|
|MARIAN COMAN

Transylvania were directly shaped by their own political and economic

interests, which obviously changed with the historical context. As a result, the
Wallachian elites adjusted their representation of Transylvanian identity to
their particular interests. Thus flattering, benevolent, threatening or
peremptory letters from Wallachia reflect different Transylvanian identities,
according to the overall tone of the message conveyed.5
What results is a mixed image, whose constituent elements are
sometimes very difficult to pinpoint. For instance, does the representation of
Transylvania from a Slavonic letter written in 1460 by a pretender to the
Wallachian throne actually reflect his views?6 Under close scrutiny, the letter
proves to have been written down by a Slavonic scribe from Transylvania, and
bears direct influence from Saxon and Hungarian terminology.7 Accordingly, in
analysing this letter there are at least three influences to take into account: the
pretender’s political objectives, his own views on Transylvania and then the
scribe’s perspective on his native region, shaped by the multi-linguistic milieu
of southern Transylvania. To which of these influences should we ascribe the
listing of Burzenland and Szeklerland alongside Transylvania, as if they were
three different regions? Upgrading the status of these two Transylvanian sub-
regions could reflect a rhetorical strategy of the pretender, aiming to flatter the
addressee on whose support he counted to gain the Wallachian throne.
However, it could equally indicate the Wallachian pretender’s limited
understanding of the status of the two autonomous sub-regions within
Transylvania, or it could even mirror the scribe’s views shaped by local pride.
Considering all these difficulties, I have deemed it necessary to adopt
several methodological precautions from the very beginning of my research.
Firstly, although the considerable chronological span of my research makes it
impossible to dwell on each document to scrutinize the intricate relation
between issuer/scribe/audience, I will consider the context in which each and
every source was written. As a result, the outcome of my research will be a sum
of case studies, rather than a general picture. Nonetheless, I will attempt to
frame all these specific cases within a broader interpretation. Secondly, I will

5 Furthermore, a significant part of the Wallachian sources is preserved only through late

medieval copies and translations, thus raising dots about their terminological fidelity or even
their authenticity. To give but one example, the most detailed geographical description of
Transylvania from an allegedly Wallachian source comes from a curious letter sent in 1580 by the
mysterious Basilius Transalpinis to the Ottoman Sultan, see Hurmuzaki III/1, no. 43. However,
nothing else is known about this Basilius and the letter has been preserved only in a Latin copy or
translation in the Imperial Archive in Vienna. Therefore, the account of Transylvania it offers
could only very cautiously be considered of Wallachian provenience.
6 See Bogdan, Documente, no. 80 and Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 76.
7 At least two terms suggest such an influence: the highly unusual title of ôuðåø (from the Saxon

fürst) ascribed to the Wallachian pretender and the designation of the Hungarian nobles as
wáàäè (from the Hungarian jobbágy).

|90
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

not include in my analysis references too ambiguous to be unequivocally

identified. For instance, numerous Wallachian letters sent to the cities of Braşov
and Sibiu mention the addressee’s realm as “your realm.” Usually, Romanian
scholars have been inclined to interpret this formula, either in Slavonic (çåìëh
ãîñïîäñòâà âè) or Latin (regnum vestrum), as a reference to “the
Transylvanian realm.”8 Nonetheless, Wallachians could have used exactly the
same Slavonic or Latin term to refer to Hungary, to Transylvania, or even to
Braşov or to Sibiu.9 Thus, reading “your realm” as “the Transylvanian realm” is
usually an over-interpretation, if not a misinterpretation. Consequently, in
order to set my analysis on solid ground, I have focused only on explicit
references to Transylvania and Transylvanian sub-regions from the late
medieval Wallachian sources.
Notwithstanding all these methodological difficulties, the main
contention of my research is unequivocal: up to the mid-sixteenth century,
Transylvania did not make its way into the Wallachian geographical world-
view. Throughout this period, the Wallachian elites regarded Transylvania only
as a rhetorical device, useful solely for diplomatic correspondence with the
Transylvanian authorities. The main question my analysis aims to address is
precisely why the Transylvanian elites failed to convey more successfully a
sense of a regional identity to their neighbours. Accordingly, I have structured
my article into two sections.
The first section looks for an explanation of Wallachian lack of
awareness of Transylvanian identity. I contend that Wallachians preferred to
operate either with wider geographical frames, such as the kingdom of
Hungary, or with narrower sub-regional ones, such as Haţeg, Făgăraş or
Burzenland. I suggest that this preference was closely connected to endeavours
by the Wallachian elite to define their own regional identity. Wallachia
emerged in the fourteenth century as a borderland region of Hungary,
extending the southern limits of the kingdom beyond Transylvania. From a
Hungarian viewpoint the two regions, “partes Transilvanae” and “partes
Transalpinae,” were equally placed within the kingdom. Accordingly, both
Transylvanian and Wallachian elites put some considerable effort into defining

8 For instance, in a Latin letter sent to the city of Sibiu in 1494, the Wallachian ruler Vlad the
Monk, justified his decision to mutilate a man who had come from Transylvania and had been
accused of spying and conspiracy, by arguing that he was his sject (“autem non fuit de regno
vestro, sed fuit de hoc regno nostro et mansionem possessionemque haberet in provincia nostra”),
see Bogdan, Documente, no. 294. When interpreting this passage, Romanian scholars have
usually read “regnum vestrum” as “Transylvanian realm,” see Grigore G. Conduratu, Relaţiunile
Ţării Româneşti şi Moldovei cu Ungaria până la anul 1526 [The relations of Wallachia and
Moldavia with Hungary till 1526], (Bucharest: Joseph Göbl, 1898). However, it seems more likely
that, in this context, Vlad the Monk was actually referring to the whole of the Hungarian
kingdom.
9 For specific examples see the next section of this article.

91|
|MARIAN COMAN

their own regional identities. Nonetheless, while the Transylvanians accepted

their place within the Hungarian kingdom, the Wallachians challenged it.
Thus, except for the recurrent oath of fealty to the Hungarian kings, the
Wallachian elites portrayed their realm in contrast to the Hungarian kingdom.10
Evidently, parallelism with Transylvania, a region with its own identity but
placed nonetheless within the kingdom, would have considerably weakened
their case.
In the second section of my article I scrutinize the differing views on
Transylvanian identity brought into play in Wallachian correspondence to the
different Transylvanian elites. My goal is to analyse both the rhetorical
adjustments and the general evolution of Wallachian views on Transylvania.
Thus, during a first phase that lasted for almost two centuries, the name of the
region remained closely connected to the titles of the Transylvanian authorities,
both lay and ecclesiastical. One might even assert that, from a Wallachian
standpoint, Transylvania was just a component of the voievods’ and the bishops’
titles. Gradually, Transylvania also gained an autonomous geographical
meaning, but the major shift took place only in the mid-sixteenth century,
when Wallachians actually began to consider Transylvania a political
community of its own. I will suggest that two markers of this significant change
are the transfer of the region’s name to its inhabitants, who are labelled as
“Transylvanians,” and the usage of the region’s name in correspondance with a
third party. I contend that this change of view was only indirectly triggered by
the new political status of Transylvania from the 1540’s. Instead, I claim that
Ottoman interests in the new principality played a major role in modifying
Wallachian views on Transylvania in the mid-sixteenth century. As a result, the
Transylvanian elites’ endeavours to convey a sense of a regional identity to
Wallachians were successfully accomplished only in the mid-sixteenth century.
The Rhetoric of Identity. Mirroring the Other and the Self
Perusing the almost three thousand extant late medieval Wallachian internal
documents, we find Transylvania virtually absent. Although there are frequent
references to different Transylvanian sub-regions, cities, villages or monasteries,
the name of the region itself is missing. While Hungary, Burzenland, Făgăraş,
Haţeg or Szeklerland, to give only a few examples, are constantly referred to in
Wallachian documents, Transylvania is mentioned only once, in a specific

10According to the oath of fealty towards the Hungarian kings that most Wallachian rulers had to
take at the beginning of their reign, Wallachia was part of the Hungarian kingdom. See for
instance Radu the Great’s oath from 1507, “regnum nostrum existat de membro regni Hungarie,”
see Bogdan, Documente, no. 309; Vlad’s oath from 1511, see Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 385; Radu
Paisie’s oath to Ferdinand Habsburg from 1543, “quod nos recognoscentes hanc terram
Transalpinensem ad inclitum regnum Hungarie et sacram ejus Coronam ab antiquo semper
pertinuisse et nunc pertinere,” see Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 210.

|92
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

context.11 Thus, a charter issued by Alexander Mircea in August 1575 refers to a

Wallachian noble, Dumbravă, who took refuge “with Stephen Báthory, the
voievod of Transylvania.”12 However, even in this single case, Transylvania is
nothing more than an element of Stephan Báthory’s title, and I will further
explore this close association between the region and the voievods’ title in the
next section of this article. Furthermore, the scribe of the 1575 document
considered this reference insufficient and added a clearer geographical
indication: “within the Hugarian realm” (âü qãðúñêîå, íà Áàòðú Èmôàí,
íà âîåâîäu Àðähëñêè). This document plainly illustrates the degree to which
the image of Transylvania was utterly overshadowed by the kingdom of
Hungary in the Wallachian sources.13 As a result, Wallachian documents always
referred to the Wallachians who crossed the mountains into Transylvania, as to
refugees in “the Hungarian realm” (âú uãðúñêîå çåìëè)14. Similarly,
Transylvanian monasteries and cities were located “within the Hungarian
realm,”15 while Transylvanian commodities were called “Hungarian
merchandise” (êuïëåõ uãðüñêèõ).16
Nevertheless, one might argue that Transylvania was implicitly present
in the medieval Wallachian geographical world-view and was referred to by
vague phrases such as “across the mountains” (ïðåç/ïðåêî ïëàíèíu). Certainly,
this is the meaning most Romanian scholars have ascribed to this stock phrase,
frequently attested in the Wallachian internal charters.17 However, inferring
that “across the mountains” should be read as “in Transylvania” is a fallacious
hypothesis. One sixteenth century charter explicitly provides an equivalent to
this geographical label not in Transylvania, but in Hungary. Thus, a charter
issued on 22nd October 1567 refers to several families of gipsies that took refuge

11 I have excluded from my analysis those documents preserved only in late, seventeenth and
eighteenth century Romanian translation, in which the name Transylvania (Ardeal) is obviously
an interpolation. See for instance DRH B, vol. 1, no. 144.
12 See DRH B, vol. 7, no. 243.
13 This remark is also valid for the oldest known Wallachian chronicles. For instance, in the so-

called Arab Chronicle, a mid-seventeenth century Arab translation of a sixteenth century

Wallachian chronicle, Hungary is consistently sstituted for Transylvania. There is even an
annotation by the Arab translator specifying that the Hungarian realm (al-Ankros or al-Mağar)
from the Wallachian chronicle is actually Transylvania (al-Ardaliya), see Virgil Cândea,
“Letopiseţul Ţării Româneşti (1292-1664) în versiunea arabă a lui Macarie Zaim” [The anals of
Wallachia (1292-1664) in the Arabic version by Macarie Zaim], Studii. Revista de Istorie 23
(1970): 684, note 13.
14 See DRH B, vol. 5, no. 62, 87, 352; vol. 6, no. 44, 70, 160, 187, 217; vol. 7, no. 28, 145, 194, 245,

246; vol. 8, no. 42, 118, 142, 175, 199, 206, 288; DIR B, vol. 5, no. 163, 223, 320, 452.
15 See for instance the explicit location of Râşava, Braşov or Cerna monastery within the

Hungarian realm, see DRH B, vol. 6, no. 128; DIR B, vol. 5, no. 231 and 363.
16 See DRH B, vol. 2, no. 30.
17 See DRH B, vol. 2, no. 9, 231, 245; vol. 3, no. 75, 111, 211; vol. 5, no. 289; vol. 6, no. 20, 44, 228;

vol. 7, no. 32, 114, 126, 232; vol. 8, no. 175, 197, 206,

93|
|MARIAN COMAN

“across the mountains, in the Hungarian realm” (ïðåç ïëàíèíu u uãðúñêà

çåìëå).18 Therefore, according to the Wallachian geographical set, “across the
mountains” was a substitute formula for the kingdom of Hungary as a whole
and not just for Transylvania. For Wallachians ïðåç ïëàíèíu simply meant in
Hungary, and the sixteenth century political changes did not alter this view at
all. Neither the collapse of the Hungarian kingdom nor the rise of the
Transylvanian principality seem to have had any impact on Wallachian views,
which continue to identify the regions “across the mountains” with “Hungary.”
Nonetheless, one should stress that Transylvania was a familiar term for the
Wallachian chancellery, which made use of it in its external correspondence.
Thus, Transylvania is already attested from 1369 in Wallachian Latin charters,
and from 1432 in the Slavonic ones.19 Moreover, as I will further argue in the
next section of this article, the Transylvanian elites constantly attempted to
convey a sense of regional identity to their southern neighbours throughout this
period. Therefore, not lack of knowledge, but rather a deliberate choice
prevented Transylvanian identity from finding its place in the Wallachian
geographical framework for more than two centuries.
I suggest that this unresponsiveness to Transylvanian identity was
directly influenced by the Wallachian elites’ desire to fashion their own
identity, in contrast to the Hungarian kingdom. Thus, Transylvania was a
collateral victim of the crucial role ascribed to the opposing pair Wallachia-
Hungary in building Wallachian identity. In order to counter Hungarian claims
that Wallachia was nothing more than “partes nostrae Transalpinae,” the
Wallachian socio-political elite emphasised on every occasion that Hungary was
a different realm from their own, a “foreign realm” (÷þæäåõ çåìëå) as stated
in a 1570 document.20 Thus, in a letter sent to Sibiu in 1499, Radu the Great
contrasted “our realm” (nostrum regnum) to the Hungarian realm (regnum
Hungariae).21 Likewise, when regulating trade across the Carpathians, the same
Wallachian ruler contrasted goods bought in “my realm” to those coming from
“Hungarians” (wò çåìëþ ãîñïîäñòâà ìè èëè wò uãðåõ).22 Similar examples
are frequently attested throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in

18 See DRH B, vol. 6, no. 44.

19 See DRH B, vol. 1, no. 3; Bogdan, Documente, no. 30.
20 Nonetheless, when taking an oath of fealty to the Hungarian king, Wallachian rulers actually

acknowledged the status of their realm as a “membrum” of the Hungarian kingdom. See above,
footnote 10.
21 The letter refers to the business of a Wallachian merchant. Radu the Great reminded the

authorities of Sibiu that the Hungarian king had already decided in his favour and, therefore, they
had to respect the king’s decision “quod non tantum Cibinium neque Koloswar (the place where
the accused merchant from Sibiu lived at that moment), sed totum regnum Hungariae pertinent
ad serenissimum dominum regem,” see Bogdan, Documente, no. 298.
22 See DRH B, vol. 2, no. 30.

|94
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

Wallachian documents,23 mostly by numerous references to Wallachian

refugees across the mountains, always identified as exiles in Hungary, although
most of them remained close to the border, in Transylvania. Therefore, the
binary opposition between Wallachia and Hungary was enhanced by
underplaying Transylvanian regional identity.
From a Wallachian standpoint, Transylvanian identity was eclipsed not
only by the larger polity of the Hungarian Kingdom, but also by the smaller
regions or rather sub-regions it comprised, such as Făgăraş, Amlaş, Haţeg,
Burzenland or Szeklerland. The first two regions, Făgăraş and Amlaş, are most
frequently attested in the Wallachian internal charters, as they were ruled by
Wallachian lords for several decades in the second half of the fourteenth and
the first half of the fifteenth century.24 Thus, Făgăraş and Amlaş found their
place in Wallachian rulers’ title, initially implicitly, as “the regions beyond the
mountains” (çàïëàíèñêûì ñòðàíàì)25 and afterwards explicitly, as “herzog of
Amlaş and Făgăraş” (Àìëàøu è ôàãðàøu õåðöåã).26 This last formula
remained in the Wallachian princes’ title long after they ceased to rule the two

23 I will provide only three more examples. In a charter of 1579, Mihnea remembered Alvise
Gritti’s expedition stating that “he came with his army and crossed the Wallachian realm into the
Hungarian realm,” see DRH B, vol. 8, no. 239. A year later, the same ruler confirmed Bistriţa
monastery’s possession over several families of Gypsies which had been moved from the
“Hungarian realm” into the “Wallachian realm,” see DRH B, vol. 8, no. 294. The third example
comes from a Latin letter of 1508 from Mihnea to Sibiu, which not only explicitly distinguishes
between “regnum Hungariae” and “regnum nostrum,” but also identifies the sources of the
Wallachian ruler’s legitimacy: “ex voluntate Dei boyaronumque huius regni nostri gernacula
suscepimus, omnesque boyarones nobiscum sunt et omnia castra manibus nostris sunt,” see
Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 334. See also the interesting formula of compromise used by Vlad in a letter
to Sibiu from 1510, reconciling Wallachia distinctiveness with its close ties to Hungary: “cum
Regia Maiestate habemus pacem, et regnum nostrum unitum est cum regno Sue Maiestatis,” see
Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 375.
24 There is an impressive Romanian scholarship debating the origins, duration and nature of

Wallachian lordship over Făgăraş and Amlaş. The main controversy regards the status of these
two regions. Thus, some scholars, such as Ilie Minea, Ioan-Aurel Pop or Sergiu Iosipescu, view
Făgăraş and Amlaş as constituent parts of the Wallachian medieval state, while others, such as
Dimitrie Onciul or Marius Diaconescu, consider the two regions to have been feudal possessions
entrusted by the Hungarian king, distinct from Wallachia.
25 Firstly attested in 1389, see DRH B, vol. 1, no. 10. The equivalence between Amlaş and Făgăraş

and “the regions beyond the mountains” was convincingly argued by Dimitrie Onciul, “Titlul lui
Mircea cel Bătrân şi posesiunile sale” [The title of Mircea the Old and his possessions], in Aurelian
Sacerdoţeanu (Ed.), Scrieri istorice [Historical works], (Bucharest: Ed. Ştiinţifică, 1968), vol. 2, 36-
39 – and is quasi-unanimously accepted in the scholarship (see Petre P. Panaitescu, Iosif Pataki or
Ioan Aurel Pop). A different hypothesis was advanced by Ioan Moga, who interpreted
çàïëàíèñêûì ñòðàíàì as referring only to Amlaş, see “Marginea, ducatul Amlaşului şi Scaunul
Săliştii,” [Marginea, the dukedom of Amlaș and the seat of Săliștea], in Mihail Dan and Aurel
Răduţiu (Eds.), Scrieri istorice [Historical works], (Cluj: Editura Dacia, 1973), 80-81.
26 The first Wallachian charters mentioning this title date from 1404-1406, see DRH-B, vol. 1, no.

28, 30 and 32.

95|
|MARIAN COMAN

regions.27 Fortunately, several Wallachian Latin and Slavonic documents

unambiguously place Făgăraş and Amlaş within a larger geographical
framework. This geographical reference is, every time, the Hungarian kingdom.
Thus, at the end of the fourteenth century, Vlad the Usurper referred to Făgăraş
and Amlaş as “dominia que in Regno Ungarie obtinemus.”28 In 1440, this time in
a Slavonic document, a Wallachian scribe replaced the adjective “beyond the
mountains” (çàïëàíèíñêûì) with “Hungarian” (uãðüñêîå),29 thus reinforcing
the idea that Făgăraş and Amlaş were two regions within Hungary. Finally, in a
1439 privilege for Polish merchants from Lviv, the Wallachian ruler’s title was
“Herzog of Amlaş and Făgăraş, within the Hungarian realm” (è íà uãðúñêîè
çåìëè Àìëàøu è ôàãàðàøu õåðöåãü).30 A similar statement can be found in
a Latin letter sent by Radu the Great to the Polish king in 1503, in which the
Wallachian ruler described the two regions as “hereditates ab awo et protawo
jureque protavico in Regno Hungarie habuimus Amlas et Fogoras.”31 Therefore,
Wallachians constantly located the two sub-regions of Amlaş and Făgăraş
within the larger kingdom of Hungary, thus eliding the intermediate frame of
Transylvania.
Wallachian preference either for the larger frame of Hungary or for
sub-regions, to the detriment of Transylvanian regional identity, is also
illustrated by the references to Haţeg, Burzenland or Szeklerland. The first
mention of Haţeg in a Wallachian document comes from a Latin letter sent in
1492 by Vlad the Monk to Sibiu.32 The Wallachian ruler informed his
neighbours of a possible Ottoman expedition “ad Hathzak aut ad
Transilvaniam.” Thus, the Wallachian chancery seemed to confer equal status to
a sub-region, Haţeg, and to a region, Transylvania. Similar examples can be
provided for Burzenland33 or Szeklerland.34 For instance, in a letter sent in 1462
to Matthias Corvinus, Vlad the Impaler asked for help against the Ottomans
either from all the Hungarian armies or at least from those from Transylvania

27 The Wallachian rulers continued to claim these two regions even at the end of the seventeenth
century, see Ilie Minea, “Din trecutul stăpânirei româneşti asupra Ardealului. Pierderea
Amlaşului şi Făgăraşului” [On the past of the Romanian lorship in Transylvania. The loss of Amlaș
and Făgăraș], Convorbiri literare 48 (1914), 73.
28 See Hurmuzaki I/2, no. 316.
29 See DRH B, vol. 1, no. 241. The expression “Hungarian regions” (uãðüñêîå ñòðàíà) is attested

in two other Wallachian documents, see DRH B, vol. 1, no. 78 and vol. 6, no. 68.
30 See Archiva istorică a României [Historical archive of Romania], 1/1 (1865), no. 108.
31 See Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 406.
32 See Bogdan, Documente, no. 291. For ssequent mentions of Haţeg in the Wallachian

documents, see DRH B, vol. 2. no. 194; vol. 4, no. 205, 206.
33 See Bogdan, Documente, no. 80 and 269. Burzenland is constantly mentioned throughout the

Wallachian rulers’ correspondence with Braşov, see ibid., passim.

34 See ibid., no. 80, no. 159 and Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 263, 355.

|96
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

and Szeklerland.35 Accordingly, Szeklerland was considered a region different

from Transylvania rather than one of its sub-regions.
Therefore, viewed from Wallachia, Transylvanian regional identity was
a frame too feeble to hold together all these sub-regions in a coherent image.
The weakness of this identity also explains Wallachian terminological
instability in designating the Transylvanian sub-regions, which are labelled
both as regions/provinces and as realms/countries. For instance, the Wallachian
chancery used no fewer than six Latin and Slavonic terms in turn to designate
Burzenland: terra Barcza, districtus Barczensis, regnum Barcay36 and äðúæàâà,
õwðà, çåìëh.37 Certainly, this terminological fluctuation had certain rhetorical
functions and Wallachian rulers opted for one term or another, according to
their interests. Nonetheless, it also indicates how loose the connection between
the Transylvanian sub-regions and region was, from a Wallachian point of
view. Thus, throughout the hundreds of letters sent to the Transylvanian
borderland sub-regions, Wallachians seldom refer to the Transylvanian
authorities.38 Moreover, this trans-frontier correspondence on everyday matters
seems to have been considerably vaster, including not only the important cities
of Braşov and Sibiu, but also smaller communities. However, most of these
letters, such as the one sent by the Wallachian noble Mogoş to the inhabitants
of Sad and Cisnădie, seldom survived.39
Nothing illustrates better the point to which the close connection
between Wallachia and neighbouring sub-regions eluded the Transylvanian
authorities than the 1520 frontier agreement between Neagoe Basarab and John
Zápolya.40 This accord was allegedly settled between Wallachia and
Transylvania, and Transylvania is named no fewer than six times in the
document: once in Zápolya’s title (êðàëþ Àðäåëñêiè), twice as the
“Transylvanian realm” (Àðäåëñêîè çåìëè) and three times in the formula “the
mountains of the Transylvanian realm” (ïëàíèíè çåìëè Àðähëñêîå).
Undoubtedly, this charter issued by Neagoe’s chancellery comprises one of the
clearest images of Transylvanian identity in all late medieval Wallachian
sources. However, I have argued elsewhere that this frontier settlement was

35 “Si eadem serenitas vestra totum suum populum dare nollet, extunc quantum serenitati vestrae

esset voluntas praebere dignaretur, saltem Transsilvaniam et Siculorum partes,” in Ioan Bogdan,
Vlad Ţepeş şi naraţiunile germane şi ruseşti asupra lui [Vlad the Impaler and the German and
Russian narratives on his biography], (Bucharest: Socecu, 1896), 80. See Bogdan’s comments on
this passage on page 77, note 1.
36 See Bogdan, Documente, no. 17, 269 and Hurmuzaki, XV/1, no. 519. Not only Burzenland, but

also Făgăraş was labelled as a “realm,” either in the diminutive form as çåìëèöà (see Bogdan,
Documente, no. 63), or plainly as çåìëh (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 434).
37 See Bogdan, Documente, no. 123, 91 and 185.
38 All documented cases will be further discussed in the next section.
39 See Nicolaescu, Documente, no. 21.
40 See DRH B, vol. 2, no. 194.

97|
|MARIAN COMAN

actually meant to conceal an attempt by nobles from Haţeg to transfer to

Wallachia a borderland region disputed with other Transylvanian actors: the Jiu
valley.41 In consequence, this deceptive Wallachian-Transylvanian agreement
was in fact a trans-frontier arrangement between Wallachia and the nobles
from a Transylvanian sub-region, Haţeg. As for the emphasis put on
Transylvanian identity, its only purpose was to distract John Zápolya from the
actual implications of this agreement. Thus, Transylvanian distinctiveness was
nothing but a cover-up designed by the Wallachian and Haţeg elites to conceal
their interests. This case reinforces an idea I have already suggested before: that
the Wallachian elites were indeed knowledgeable of Transylvanian regional
identity, albeit it was brought into play only when it served their interests.
Squeezed between the sub-regions of Burzenland, Făgăraş or Haţeg and
the kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania found little room to manifest its
identity. This explains why Transylvania is virtually absent from Wallachian
internal sources up to the end of the sixteenth century. However, when
addressing a Transylvanian audience, mostly the Transylvanian authorities, the
Wallachian elite knew how to adjust their message. Nonetheless, even in direct
Wallachian-Transylvanian correspondence Transylvania was barely mentioned
up to the mid-sixteenth century, when a more consistent image of its regional
identity gradually began to emerge.
The Rhetoric of Diplomacy. Formality, Flattery and Identity
The first mention of Transylvania in a Wallachian document comes from a
Latin charter issued in 1369 by Vladislav Vlaicu in favour of the bishop of
Transylvania: Demetrius, episcopus ecclesiae Transylvanae.42 Throughout the
next two centuries, the Wallachian chancery complied with the rules of
diplomacy and used the title assumed by the addressee in the letters sent to the
Transylvanian dignitaries. Thus, in their correspondence with the
Transylvanian voievods, the Wallachian lords used the appropriate title, either
vaivoda Transylvanensis in the Latin letters or âîèâîäà Åðäåëñêîìà in
Slavonic.43 Occasionally, the Wallachian chancery also used these formal titles

41 See my in depth analysis of this frontier settlement in “Hotǎrnicia din 1520 dintre Ţara
Româneascǎ şi Ardeal. Hotar de ţarǎ sau hotar de moşie?” [The perambulation of 1520 between
Wallachia and Transylvania. State border or landed-property border?], Acta Transylvanica, 2012
(forthcoming).
42 There are actually two letters with similar content, dating from the same day, 15th November

1369, see DRH B, vol. 1, no. 3 and Hurmuzaki I/2, no. 112. The differences between the two
letters suggest a negotiation between the Wallachian lord and the Transylvanian bishop’s envoy.
Thus, I consider the document edited in DRH to have been a draft proposed by the bishop, and
the document plished in Hurmuzaki to have been the final version issued by the Wallachian
chancery.
43 See Vlad Dracul’ Slavonic letter to John Hunyadi (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 63 and

Bogdan, Documente, no. 53), Basarab’s the Young’s Slavonic letter to Stephen Báthory (Tocilescu,
534 documente, no. 116 and Bogdan, Documente, no. 118), Archbishop Macarie’s Slavonic letter

|98
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

in letters sent to the Saxon cities of Braşov and Sibiu, when referring to the
Transylvanian voievods.44
Nonetheless, although the rules of diplomacy required the use of these
titles, some slight variants were occasionally preferred for their rhetorical
effect. Thus, in two Wallachian letters, one sent to Braşov and the other to
Sibiu, the title “Transylvanian voievod” has been replaced with “Transylvanian
lord” (ãîñïîäèí Åðäåëñêîì).45 The two letters, both sent in the 1520’s, aimed
to upgrade the status of the Transylvanian voievod/lord, as well as to emphasize
the Wallachian lords’ loyalty to him, by replacing the title of âîèâîäà with the
more prestigious one of ãîñïîäèí. Thus, in 1523, anxious to shake off any
doubts about his loyalty, Vladislav reminded the inhabitants of Braşov that he
had taken an oath not only to the Hungarian kingdom, but also to the sacred
Hungarian crown, to the Transylvanian lord, to all the Hungarian lords, and
even to them.46 After just a few years, Vladislav’s successor, Radu, sent a similar
epistle to Sibiu, trying to justify his journey to Istanbul and his compliance to
Ottoman commands. Here the Wallachian lord invoked the blessing and
protection given to him by God, by the sacred Hungarian crown, by the
Transylvanian lord (ãîñïîäèíu Åðäåëñêîìu), by all the lords from the
Hungarian kingdom and even by the inhabitants of Sibiu.47 The similarities
between the two letters are striking, and one might even suspect that both were

to Stephen Báthory (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 371), Vlad Vintilă’s Latin letter to Stephen
Báthory (Veress, Acta et epistolae, no. 196), Radu Paisie’s Latin letter to Stephen Mailat (Veress,
Documente, vol. 1, no. 15), Mihnea’s Hungarian Letter to Cristofor Báthory (Veress, Documente,
vol. 2, no. 136). To my knowledge, there is only one extant letter sent by a Wallachian ruler to a
Transylvanian vice-voievod, see Radu Paisie’s Latin letter to Ladislas Mykola from 1542,
Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 779. For the Slavonic title assumed by the Transylvanian voivods, see
Hunyadi’s charter for Tismana in DRH B, vol. 1, no. 97.
44 See Vlad Dracul’s Latin letter to Braşov from 1444 (Bogdan, Documente, no. 254), Radu the

Fair’s Latin letter to Sibiu (Bogdan, Documente, no. 254), Radu the Fair’s Slavonic and Latin
letters to Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 82 and Bogdan, Documente, no. 85 and 273),
Basarab the Young’s letters to Braşov (Bogdan, Documente, no. 292 and 293), Boyar Neagu’s
Slavonic letter to Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 394), Radu the Great’s Slavonic and Latin
letters to Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 193, 194, 195 and Bogdan, Documente, no. 186,
no. 308), Mihnea’s Slavonic and Latin letters to Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 222,
Bogdan, Documente, no. 53, Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 347), Neagoe Basarab’s Slavonic letter to
Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 232, 270), Radu de la Afumaţi’s Latin letter to Braşov
(Hurmuzaki, XV/1, no. 513), Vladislav III’s Slavonic letter to Braşov (Tocilescu, 534 documente,
no. 281), Radu Paisie’s Slavonic letter to Sibiu (Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 352).
45 I have not included among them Pătraşcu’s letter to Braşov from 23rd May 1555, containing the

well-known phrase “if they [the Ottomans] defeat you and your realm, there will be no lord and
no king there, in that self-governing realm of yours,” because there is no explicit mention of
Transylvania. The implicit reference seems rather to be to the Hungarian realm, Pătraşcu
preserving thus the traditional Wallachian terminology. Pătraşcu’s letter was edited by Bogdan in
Documente şi regeste, no. 192.
46 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 279 şi Bogdan, Documente şi regeste, no. 83.
47 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 308.

99|
|MARIAN COMAN

written down by the same scribe. Nevertheless, their resemblance was mostly
shaped by similarity of purpose. Both letters attempted to convince a rather
sceptical Transylvanian audience that, despite increasing Ottoman domination,
the Wallachian lords were still loyal to the Hungarian kingdom.48 Therefore,
the change in the Transylvanian voievods’ title, from âîèâîäà to ãîñïîäèí,
functioned as a rhetorical device aiming to emphasise this idea.
Rhetoric did play an important role in shaping the messages the
Wallachian lords conveyed to their Transylvanian correspondents. Thus,
apparently minor changes could offer some insights into the overall tone of a
letter, sometimes quite difficult to grasp as we lack further knowledge of the
broader context in which these sources were written. The most expressive
rhetorical device of this kind was to downgrade, or on the contrary to upgrade,
the status of Transylvania. Thus, mirroring the Wallachian lords’ flattering or
threatening intentions, Transylvania could be designated either as a region,
äðàæàâà/terra, or as a realm, çåìëh/regnum. For instance, in 1460, when
asking the Transylvanian Saxons for help, Dan, the pretender to the Wallachian
throne, used the formula the “Transylvanian realm” (çåìëu Àðäåëñêîìu).49
Similarly, almost seven decades later, Radu, the Wallachian ruling lord,
threatened by a pretender, asked for help from the “Transylvanian realm”
(Åðäåëñêîìu çåìëþ).50 In the Wallachian lords’ Latin correspondence the
equivalent to çåìëh was regnum. Thus in 1444, when Vlad Dracul renewed
the commercial privilege granted to Braşov at John Hunyadi’s request, he tried
to save face by emphasizing the equal status of the two realms, duo regna,
Wallachia and Transylvania.51 The same equivalence between regnum
Transalpinum and regnum Transsilvanum is illustrated by Radu the Great’s oath
of fidelity to the Hungarian kingdom, taken in 1507.52 Finally, to give just one
more example, Radu Ilie, who reigned in Wallachia for only a few months in

48 The rhetorical connotations of these terms are beautifully illustrated by a letter sent in 1481 to
Sibiu by Basarab the Young. Thus, the Wallachian rulers referred to Stephan Báthory, the
Transylvanian voievod, as to “the lord and our father, voievod Stephan Báthory” (ãîñïîäèíu è
ðîäèòåëþ ìè âîèâîäå Áàòúð måôàíu) and, two lines below, as to “the lord of Hungarians and
my father [...] the voievod lord Stephan Báthory” (ãîñïîäèíu uãðàìè ðîäèòåëþ ìè [...]
ãîñïîäèíà âîåâîäå Áàòúð måôàíà). However, the words Transylvania or Transylvanians are
missing from the letter, which instead mentions the Hungarians, several times. This letter was
edited by Dragomir in Documente, no. 8.
49 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 76.
50 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 284 and Bogdan, Documente şi regeste, no. 167.
51 Bogdan, Documente, no. 254. The identical status of the two realms is stressed both by the

formula “pro tranquilla pace et statu perpetuo inter duo regna observanda,” as well as by the joint
titles of John Hunyadi and Vlad’s father Mircea, named as “Transsalpinarum et Transsilvanie
wayvodarum.”
52 Bogdan, Documente, no. 309. In contrast to Vlad Dracul’s charter from 1444, Radu the Great’s

letter did not emphasise the similar status of Wallachia and Transylvania, but rather their
inclusion within the Hungarian kingdom.

|100
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

1553, wrote to Andrew Báthory to assure him that he will remain faithful to his
death to “regnum Transilvanensis.”53 However, when Wallachian rulers
changed the tone of their letters from flattery to intimidation, they likewise
lowered the status of Transylvania. Thus, when Radu the Great wrote to the
citizens of Braşov threatening them with commercial sanctions for giving
refuge to his opponents, he carefully distinguished between the Wallachian and
Hungarian realms (âëàøêà çåìëh and çåìëþ ãîñïîäèíu ìè âèñîòå
êðàëåâå) and the Transylvanian province (Åðäåëñêu äðúæàâu).54 Similarly,
Moses’s menacing letter from 1529, exhorting the citizens of Braşov to observe
the Ottoman Sultan’s will, also referred to Transylvania as a region.55
Whether a realm or a region, ruled by voivods or by lords, from a
Wallachian standpoint Transylvania continued to be closely and almost
exclusively associated with the voivods’ title for more than two centuries. The
meaning of Transylvania was rarely extended from an element of the intitulatio
to a larger geographical connotation. Even in these few cases, the name
remained closely connected with the titles of the Transylvanian authorities. For
instance, the so-called Wallachian-Transylvanian treaty of 1529 refers twice to
“partes Transsylvaniae,” twice to the Transylvanian bishop “episcopus
Transsylvanensis” and once to the Transylvanian vice-voievod, “wicewayvoda
transsylvanus.”56 However, in both contexts the “parts” are referred to only in
connection with the Transylvanian dignitaries, who clearly shaped the regional
identity: “officiales in partibus transsylvanis existentes.” Only from the mid-
sixteenth century onwards did Wallachian sources gradually begin to broaden
their view of Transylvanian regional identity. This lengthy process of change
varied according to the language used by the Wallachian chancery. Thus, while
the changes are barely visible in Slavonic documents, they became more
obvious in Latin correspondence. However, it is in Hungarian, a language that
the Wallachian chancery began to use consistently only from this period, that

53 “Quia cum morte nostra dispartiri volumus a vestra spectabili et magnifica dominacione ac a

regno Transsilvanensi,” see Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 244. There are two other references to “regnum
Transsilvanensis” within this document. Nonetheless, these rhetorical variants are more
consistently used in the Slavonic documents than in the Latin ones, in which the terminology
seems much more fluid. See for instance the interchangeable use of “terra” and “regnum” in
Mircea Ciobanu’s letter from 1551 in Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 251. This difference was certainly
caused by the irregular and improvised nature of the Wallachian Latin chancery.
54 See Radu the Great’s letter to Braşov from 1497 in Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 188 and

Bogdan, Documente, no. 180.

55 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 314 and Bogdan, Documente şi regeste, no. 170. See in

contrast the tone of a Latin letter sent by Moses to Braşov during the same year, 1529,
announcing the arrival of a Wallachian emissary “ad regnum transsilvanum,” see Hurmuzaki
XV/1, no. 639.
56 The treaty was concluded between the two Wallachian nobles who led the army into

Transylvania (Neagu and Drăgan) and several Transylvanian dignitaries, see Hurmuzaki XV/1, no.
615.

101|
|MARIAN COMAN

Transylvanian regional identity is most meaningfully represented. For instance,

in a Slavonic letter sent to Braşov by Radu Paisie, the Wallachian chancery
altered the title ascribed to the voievod from “Transylvanian voievod” to
“voievod from Transylvania” (âîåâîäà wò Àðähë).57 This simple grammatical
change, from adjective to noun, might seem a minor alteration. Nonetheless, it
suggests an increasing distinction between the region and its voievod. This
interpretation is substantiated by another Wallachian letter, issued just a few
years later, which uses Transylvania as a geographical reference for the first
time.58 Thus, Mircea Ciobanu sent the city of Braşov the news that Martinuzzi
had entered the city of Alba Iulia, in Transylvania (Áåëãðàä u Åðäåë).59 Hardly
sketched in the Slavonic Wallachian documents from mid-sixteenth century,
Transylvanian identity is significantly more present in the Latin ones. Not only
that the Latin Wallachian sources gave Transylvania a clear geographical
meaning, but they also transferred it to its inhabitants, who are for the first time
called Transylvanians. Furthermore, the regional identity acquires an
unambiguous political implication. Thus, in his Latin letters, Mircea Ciobanu
considered Transylvanians and the entire realm of Transylvania a political
community on its own, asking them to accept the Ottoman Sultan’s will and to
acknowledge the son of the deceased king John as “rex totius Transsylvaniae.”60
A Hungarian letter sent by the same Mircea Ciobanu in 1553 portrays an even
clearer image of Transylvanian identity.61 Thus, Mircea Ciobanu asked Francis
Kendy to consult with the Transylvanian realm in order to take the most
convenient decision with regard to some Wallachian noble refugees.62
Thus Transylvanian regional identity openly emerged in Wallachian
sources in the mid-sixteenth century, more noticeably in documents written in
Latin and Hungarian. Obviously, this increasing awareness of Transylvanian
identity was directly influenced by the political changes within the former
kingdom of Hungary, where a Transylvanian principality slowly emerged in the

57 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 337.

58 Although several previous Wallachian documents gave Transylvania a straightforward
geographical meaning, the name of the province had never been used before as a reference, i.e.
helping locate a different item. As for the geographical meaning of Transylvania, I have noted
only seven mentions before the mid-sixteenth century, see Alexandru Aldea’s Slavonic letter
from 1432, the pretender Dan’s Latin letter from 1460, Vlad’s Latin letter from 1462, Radu the
Fair’s Slavonic letter from 1469, Vlad the Monk’s Latin letter from 1492, Radu the Great’s
Slavonic letter from 1498 and Radu Paisie’s Latin letter to Sibiu from 1541, see Bogdan,
Documente, no. 30, 180, 269, no. 291; Bogdan, Vlad Ţepeş, 80; Dragomir, Documente, no. 2 and
Hurmuzaki XV/1, no. 761.
59 See Tocilescu, 534 documente, no. 362 and Bogdan, Documente şi regeste, no. 189.
60 See the letter to Peter Petrovich in Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 246. The term “Transylvanians” is

documented in Mircea Ciobanu’s letter to Sibiu, see Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 262. See also the highly
dramatic letter sent to Sibiu on 16th June 1551, in Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 251.
61 See Veress, Documente, vol. 1, no. 175.
62 The letter mentions the Transylvanian realm (Erdél ország) no fewer than seven times.

|102
 Transylvanian Regional Identities in Medieval Wallachian Sources|

context of the Habsburg-Ottoman confrontation.63 However, it was not direct

observation that shaped new Wallachian views of Transylvania, hence the
unchanging image in the Wallachian internal sources.64 Instead, a third actor
played a major role in disseminating the image of a Transylvanian regional
identity in Wallachia: the Ottomans. This contention is substantiated by several
mid-sixteenth century Wallachian documents, usually overlooked. The most
interesting of these documents is a letter sent by Mircea Ciobanu to the city of
Sibiu in 1552, urging the Transylvanians (and this is the first use of the term in
Wallachian sources) to reject the Habsburgs and to accept the Ottoman
dominion.65 However, the content of the document was not actually of a
Wallachian design, as it comprised a Latin translation of an Ottoman letter. The
Sultan’s original letter considered the inhabitants of Transylvania a political
community of their own. The Wallachian chancery simply took over the
Ottoman political vocabulary, while Mircea Ciobanu, acting as an Ottoman
dignitary, reinforced the Sultan’s message. Thus his Latin and Hungarian letters,
mentioned earlier, should be integrated within a larger corpus of sources,
including not only Wallachian-Transylvanian, but also Ottoman-Wallachian
and Ottoman-Transylvanian correspondence from mid-sixteenth century.66
Hence, Mircea Ciobanu’s intensive correspondence with Transylvanian
dignitaries was part of a larger diplomatic initiative by the Ottomans, who
played an active role in shaping a different image of Transylvanian regional
identity in Wallachian sources. It is no coincidence that the first Wallachian
letter addressed to a non-Transylvanian audience referring to this region and
explicitly mentioning its name is a report sent by the Wallachian ruler,

63 For the broader political context see Edit Szegedi, “The birth and evolution of the Principality

of Transylvania (1541-1690),” in Ioan-Aurel Pop, Thomas Nägler, András Magyari (Eds.), The
History of Transylvania, Vol. II. (From 1541 to 1711), (Bucharest: 2009).
64 As I have shown in the previous section, Wallachian internal sources continued to ignore the

existence of Transylvania, referring instead to the late kingdom of Hungary, up to the end of the
sixteenth century.
65 See Veress, Documente, vol. 1, no. 122. For a general overview of Mircea Ciobanu’s reign,

offering new insights into his pro-Ottoman attitude, see Ştefan Andreescu, “Politica lui Mircea
Ciobanul” [The policy of Mircea Ciobanul], in Perspective medievale [Medieval perspectives],
(Bucharest: Editura Nemira, 2002). 99-111,
66 For the Ottoman-Wallachian correspondence on Transylvanian affairs see Süleyman’s letter to

Mircea Ciobanu from 16th July 1559, edited in Mustafa Mehmed, Documente turceşti privind
istoria României, vol. 1 (1455-1774) [Turkish documents regarding Romania’s history],
(Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976), no. 35. Mircea Ciobanu’s letters from 1551-1552 are part of
a larger Ottoman diplomatic campaign, which also includes the Sultan’s letters to Martinuzzi and
to several Transylvanians, as well as the beylerbey of Rumelia’s letter to Martinuzzi, see
Hurmuzaki II/2, no. 241 and Hurmuzaki II/4, no. 354, 370, 379 and 380. For the Habsburg-
Ottoman competition for Transylvania see Ileana Căzan, “Primele ambasade ale Habsburgilor în
Imperiul otoman şi lupta pentru cucerirea Transilvaniei (1547-1562)” [The first embassies of the
Habsburgs to Ottoman Empire and the struggle for the conquest of Transylvania], Studii şi
Materiale de Istorie Medie 14 (1995): 31-40 and 15 (1996): 23-40.

103|
|MARIAN COMAN

Pătraşcu, to the Ottoman court.67 Thus, in the mid-sixteenth century, in the

broader context of the emergence of the Transylvanian principality, Ottoman
political interests directly influenced Wallachian views of Transylvanian
regional identity. As a result, after a long process that lasted for more than two
centuries, Transylvania finally earned its place within the Wallachian
geographical world-view.
Conclusions
At the end of this overview covering more than two and a half centuries I
would like to underline three ideas. Firstly, the Wallachian chancery used
different geographical frames for different audiences. When corresponding with
the Transylvanian authorities, Transylvanian identity was brought into play. In
contrast, when addressing a Wallachian audience, the chancery ignored
Transylvania, referring instead to the kingdom of Hungary or to the borderland
sub-regions. Thus, as an alternative to the Transylvanian regional identity
frame, Wallachians viewed this province either through the larger lens of the
Hungarian kingdom, or through the smaller ones of the borderland sub-regions,
such as Burzenland, Făgăraş or Haţeg. Therefore, throughout the entire late
medieval period, Transylvania failed to find its place within the Wallachian
geographical world-view. One should not underplay the importance of this
conclusion, as it questions the very foundation on which the vast scholarship on
the Transylvanian-Wallachian medieval relationships has been built. Viewed
from a different standpoint, this failure also hints at the limits of the
Transylvanian elites’ endeavour to convey a sense of regional identity to their
southern neighbours. Thus from the mid-fourteenth to the mid-sixteenth
century, Transylvania remained in Wallachian eyes a simple component of the
voievods’ title, rather than a genuine region. Thirdly, the decisive factor in
changing Wallachian views on Transylvanian was the Ottomans. From the mid-
sixteenth century onwards, Wallachian elites finally acknowledged
Transylvanian regional identity, as a consequence of Ottomans’ views and
interests in shaping a new political status for this region.

67 The report from November 1556, preserved only in an Italian contemporary copy, mixes

traditional and recent Wallachian political vocabularies. Thus, in this document, Pătraşcu
reported to the Sultan on the mission entrusted to him, mentioning Hungary three times, and
Transylvania only once, see Hurmuzaki II/1, no. 330. See also a Latin report on Pătraşcu’s
emissary sent into Transylvania in January 1556 to convince the “regnicolae Transsylvaniae” to
recognize “filium Ioanis quondam Regis” (John Sigismund Zápolya) as ruler, see Hurmuzaki XI,
no. 6.

|104