• Subiect: ALEXANDRU STERCA ŞULUŢIU DEFENDING OF IANCU OF HUNEDOARA This article circulates a polemic from the very beginning of modern Romanian historiography. Its author, Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu was a clergy extremely interested in history who used to be Vicar-General for the Blaj Romanian Byzantine-Catholic rite bishops when he wrote that text. His residence used to be in Şimleu Silvaniei in a county called Partium from Transylvania. This Romanian clergy started in 1813 a serious polemic with the Hungarian historian Szilágyi Ferenc. The object was the ethnic origin of Iancu of Hunedoara. At that moment it was well-known on the basis of historical facts that the great hero of the Middle Ages was of Romanian origin. But the romantic Hungarian historiography from a well-known sense of exaggerated nationalism tried to dispute this origin. In IBH Szilágyi Ferenc published an ivory copy of a female portrait accompanied by an inscription. Szilágyi Ferenc concluded from that inscription that Iancu of Hunedoara was a Szekely (Hungarian) and not a Romanian. His statements were extremely vexing for the Romanians and Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu answered that offence in the text that is now first published. It was written in Hungarian because Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu was arguing with a Hungarian. We publish now the Hungarian text and the first Romanian translation. Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu actually sought in it the bases Szilágyi´s theory of the Hungarian (Szekely) origin of Iancu of Hunedoara. He remarked that portrait was a late counterfeit and the inscription an even later one. One cannot prove anything using counterfeits. On the contrary our historian proved that Iancu of Hunedoara was Romanian. His son, the king Mathias Corvinus, openly recognized this origin. And this proof was also strengthened by using information provided by ancient Hungarian historians like Thuróczi and Bonfinius from where even the German historians I. A. Fessler and L. A. Gebhardi had taken this information. The objectivity and logic of the Romanian historian his recent documentation, made him the winner of this historical polemic. Although reduced in size his 1843 work was a very important Romanian document. To check the truth about the ivory portrait that Szilágyi Perene talked, stating it was of Iancu de Hunedoara's wife we asked a Hungarian art historian that lives in Cluj (Romania). He is Kovács András, a specialist in Transylvanian gothic. His conclusions confirm that of Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu's. That wasn't the portrait of Iancu of Hunedoara's wife and the inscription was counterfeited around the year 1835. So this is the confirmation of the Romanian historian's statement.
  • Limba de redactare: română
  • Secţiunea: Istorie modernă
  • Vezi publicația: Acta Musei Porolissensis
  • Editura: Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă din Zalău
  • Loc publicare: Zalău
  • Anul publicaţiei: 1995
  • Referinţă bibliografică pentru nr. revistă: XIX; anul 1995; subtitlu: Anuarul Muzeului Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă din Zalău
  • Paginaţia: 133-157
  • Navigare în nr. revistă:  |<  <  14 / 41   >  >|