Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T17:03:35.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hungarian Nationalities Act of 1868 in Operation (1868–1914)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2023

Ágoston Berecz Open the ORCID record for Ágoston Berecz [Opens in a new window]
Ágoston Berecz*
Affiliation:
CEU/Pasts, Inc, Budapest, oguszt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article investigates explicit and implicit state language policies in Dualist Hungary (1867–1918), focusing on its eastern Romanian, Hungarian, and German-speaking parts. It sets the regulation and practices against the benchmark of the linguistic rights outlined in the 1868 Nationalities Act, the earliest modern, liberal language law on the continent. This document served as a central reference for contemporaries, an importance also bequeathed to historiographical accounts. Building on the applied linguist Janny Leung's analysis, the first half of the article engages with features that the Nationalities Act shared with most provisions enshrining legal multilingualism worldwide: a legitimating function, the under-specification of several key sections, and the fact that it referred to institutions on the move. Next, the article turns to more unambiguous paragraphs of the law, distinguishing between those that fit into the logic and were exploited for symbolic politics and those with more immediate, practical consequences for large sections of the citizenry. It further probes into the dispersed agency, ideological and pragmatic motives, and the center-periphery dynamics behind the (non-)implementation of the law.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , Winter 2022 , pp. 994 - 1015
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I benefited from a fellowship from Imre Kertész Kolleg, Jena, while writing this paper.

References

1. In the present paper, the term “minority” does not refer to numbers but stands for a politically and culturally non-dominant category.

2. Péter, László, Hungary’s Long Nineteenth Century: Constitutional and Democratic Traditions in a European Perspective (Leiden, Netherlands, 2012), 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Maxwell, Alexander, Everyday Nationalism in Hungary: 1789–1867 (Berlin, 2019), 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary (London, 1948), 136–37Google Scholar; May, Arthur J., The Hapsburg Monarchy 1867–1914 (New York, 1968), 83Google Scholar; Ludwig Gogolák, “Ungarns Nationalitätengesetze und das Problem des magyarischen National- und Zentralstaates,” in Adam Wandruszka and Peter Urbanitsch, eds., Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 3, Die Völker des Reiches, part 2, 1,285–87 (Vienna, 2003); Evans, R. J. W., “Language and State Building: The Case of the Habsburg Monarchy,” Austrian History Yearbook 35 (2004): 16–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Judson, Pieter M., The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge, Mass., 2016), 266–67Google Scholar.

5. I quote the Nationalities Act in the translation of Robert William Seton-Watson [pseud. Scotus Viator], Racial Problems in Hungary (London, 1908), 429–33.

6. Ibid., particularly 149–59.

7. Hugh and Christopher Seton-Watson, The Making of a New Europe: R. W. Seton-Watson and the Last Years of Austria-Hungary (London, 1981), 31–55; Péter, Hungary’s Long Nineteenth Century, 447–61. See also his notes in Cornelia Bodea and Hugh Seton-Watson, eds., R. W. Seton-Watson and the Romanians 1906–1920, vol. 1 (Bucharest, 1988).

8. Leung, Janny H. C., Shallow Equality and Symbolic Jurisprudence in Multilingual Legal Orders (New York, 2019), 96–101, 105–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Leung, Shallow Equality, 150.

10. Maxwell, Everyday Nationalism in Hungary, 34.

11. Leung, Shallow Equality, 98–99, 106, 109–12.

12. Berecz, Ágoston, “Hungarian, Romanian and German in the Counties of Dualist Hungary,” Südost-Forschungen 80 (2021): 141–73, here 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Gábor Kemény, ed., Iratok a nemzetiségi kérdés történetéhez Magyarországon a dualizmus korában (Budapest, 1956), 2:207–17; vol. 3 (Budapest, 1964), 3:109–12, 590–91.

14. One prominent example is Sándor Biró, The Nationalities Problem in Transylvania, 1867–1940: A Social History of the Romanian Minority under Hungarian Rule, 1867–1918 and the Hungarian Minority under Romanian Rule, 1918–1940, trans. Mario D. Fenyo (Boulder, Colo., 1992).

15. But see the writings of László Marácz, especially “Minority Language Rights in Europe: From the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to the Supranational Organizations,” in István Horváth et al., eds., Minority Representation and Minority Language Rights (Cluj-Napoca, 2014), 101–25; and, from the recent literature in Hungarian, György Andrássy, “Hány hivatalos nyelve volt Magyarországnak az 1868. évi XLIV. tc. szerint?,” Jogtörténeti Szemle, 32, no. 3 (2017): 4–12; András Bethlendi and Norbert Szeredai, “Az erdélyi románok kisebbségi jogállása 1918 előtt,” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Legal Studies 7, no. 2 (2018): 129–63. For a mainstream historical work making the explicit claim that the law as a whole remained operational, see László Katus, Hungary in the Dual Monarchy, 1867–1914 (Boulder, Colo., 2008), 100–101.

16. Leung, Shallow Equality, 99.

17. Schlett, István, ed., A nemzetiségi törvényjavaslat országgyűlési vitája, 1868 (Budapest, 2002), 83Google Scholar.

18. Berecz, Ágoston, “Linguistic diversity and the court system in Dualist Hungary,” Multilingua 40, no. 3 (May 2021): 393–419, here 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19. Seton-Watson, Racial Problems in Hungary, 431.

20. Section 6 of Act IV of 1869, on the exercise of judicial power.

21. Ibid., 400, 402.

22. Decree no. 32,710/1875 of the minister of justice, quoted in Aurèle C. Popovici, La question roumaine en Transylvanie et en Hongrie; avec plusieurs tableaux statistiques et une carte ethnographique (Lausanne, Switzerland, 1918), 136; §§ 48 and 523 of Act XXXIII of 1896, on the code of criminal procedure; Magyarországi rendeletek tára 10 (1876): 45.

23. Ügyvédi Kamarai Közlöny 1 (1904): 68; Ellenzék, April 20, 1905, 2; Cosmin F. Budeancă, “Protestul avocaților din 1905 împotriva maghiarizării firmelor de avocatură,” Sargetia. Acta Musei Devensis 28–29/2 (1999–2000): 318–21.

24. §§ 134 and 229 of Act I of 1911, on the code of civil procedure.

25. Berecz, “Linguistic diversity,” 404–6. See § 4 of Act XXXIII of 1897, on the criminal jury.

26. Ibid. 408–9. Cf. § 350 of Act XXXIII of 1896.

27. Ibid. 410. Cf. Magyarországi rendeletek tára 7 (1873): 616; Budapesti Közlöny 7 (1873): 2,044; § 19 of Act XVIII of 1893, on summary (oral) procedure; §§ 204 and 332 of Act I of 1911.

28. Berecz, “Linguistic diversity,” 412–13.

29. Berecz, “Hungarian, Romanian and German”.

30. Arad, Belső-Szolnok, Bihar, Felső-Fehér, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllő, Kolozs, Közép-Szolnok, Krassó, Máramaros, Temes, Torda and Zaránd Counties and the Districts of Chioar/Kővár, Fogaras/Făgăraș and Năsăud/Naszód after 1868 and four counties with Saxon leaderships (Beszterce-Naszód, Brassó, Nagy-Küküllő, Szeben) and Krassó-Szörény County in 1914. Judit Pál, “A hivatalos nyelv és a hivatali nyelvhasználat kérdése Erdélyben a 19. század közepén,” Regio 16, no. 1 (2005): 3–26; MNL–OL K150–1867–15,131; ibid. K150–1867–10,613; ibid. K150–1872–621; ibid. K150–1885–55,559; Hungarian National Archives (henceforth MNL-OL), X4567, box 938; Romanian National Archives Cluj, Fond Districtul Chioar 338/1867, 2–18; Telegrafulu Romanu, March 24/April 5, 1877, 96; Magyar Polgár, July 24, 1867, 148; Magyar Polgár, July 31, 1868, 366; Budapesti Közlöny, January 28, 1869, 268; Politikai Ujdonságok 15 (1869): 176; Néptanitók Lapja 4 (1871): 675; Patria, October 6/18, 1871, 1; Magyar Polgár, December 31, 1871, 508; Magyar Polgár, March 5, 1872, 2; Az 1872. évi september hó 1-jére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának naplója (Buda, 1875), 15:33; Vasile Căpîlnean, Ioan Sabău and Valeriu Achim, eds., Maramureșenii în lupta pentru libertate și unitate națională: documente: 1848–1918 (Bucharest, 1981), 129, 130–1, 136–7; Kemény, ed., Iratok, 2:279; Ioan Pleșa, “Reactivarea la Blaj, în perioada postmemorandistă, a clubului politic central al românilor din Alba inferioară,” Dacoromania, no. 48 (2009): 4; Gazeta Transilvaniei, April 12/25, 1903, 1–2; Gazeta Transilvaniei, April 13/26, 1903, 2; Gazeta Transilvaniei, September 20/October 3, 1909, 2–3; Constantin Băjenaru, Comitatul Făgăraș (1876–1918) (Alba Iulia, Romania, 2016), 59.

31. The majority of the electorate consisted of Romanians in Fogaras (71%), Arad (64%), Hunyad (62%), Szolnok-Doboka (53%) and Szilágy Counties (52%); Az 1910. évi junius hó 21-ére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának irományai (Budapest, 1914), 23:346–47. In addition, native Romanians were the largest category in Alsó-Fehér County (77%), Torda-Aranyos County (72%), Kolozs County (56%), Kis-Küküllő County (48%, alongside 30% Magyars and 18% Saxons), and Temes County (34%, alongside 33% Germans and 16% Magyars).

32. Romanian National Archives, Bistrița-Năsăud (henceforth, ANBN), Fond Prefectura Județului Năsăud; ANBN, Fond Primăria orașului Năsăud; ANBN, Fond Primăria orașului Bistrița (inv. 619); ANBN, Inventory 867 (Pretura Plășii Rodna); Romanian National Archives, Brașov (henceforth, ANB), Fond Breasla Cizmarilor din Brașov; Romanian National Archives, Alba (henceforth, ANA), Fond Primăria orașului Sebeș (inv. 33); ANA, Fond Primăria orașului Mediaș; Romanian National Archives, Mureș, Fond Prefectura Județului Târnava Mare, Organe reprezentative (inv. 414); ANA, Inventory 1401 (Primăria comunei Petrești); Valeriu Braniște, Amintiri din închisoare (Bucharest, 1972), 63; Adrian Onofreiu, “Contribuții documentare privind istoria comitatului Bistrița-Năsăud: 1876–1899,” Arhiva Someșană, 3rd series, 5 (2006): 291–92, 298–302; ANBN, Fond Prefectura Județului Năsăud 9/1887, 40–45, 62–63; Gazeta Transilvaniei, December 12/24, 1895, 1.

33. Kelet, October 5, 1876; Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt, May 30,1879, 518; Dezső Bánffy to Kálmán Tisza on January 5, 1889, MNL–OL BM K148–1890-III-16; Milan Zaka’s letter accompanying the report of the Werschetz/Vršac administrative committee for 1902, MNL–OL K26–1,675.

34. Kemény, ed., Iratok (Budapest, 1966), 4:280; Florin Zamfir, Școala și societatea românească din comitatul Timiș, între anii 1867–1900 (Timișoara, 2009), 391, 423–24; Foaia Diecesană (Caransebeș), November 6/18, 1894, 1.

35. John Deak, Forging a Multinational State: State Making in Imperial Austria from the Enlightenment to the First World War (Stanford, 2015), 86–92.

36. Gábor Ugron’s speech in the Chamber of Deputies, November 6, 1903; Kemény, ed., Iratok, 4:484.

37. Gogolák, “Ungarns Nationalitätengesetze,” 1,285–87.

38. Kemény, ed., Iratok (Budapest, 1971), 5:362.

39. Ibid., (Budapest, 1985), 6:95–106, 109–14.

40. Leung, Shallow Equality, 97–99, 106–7, 112, 125.

41. For more on the topic, Joachim von Puttkamer, Schulalltag und nationale Integration in Ungarn: Slowaken, Rumänen und Siebenbürger Sachsen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der ungarischen Staatsidee, 1867–1914 (Munich, 2003); Ágoston Berecz, The Politics of Early Language Teaching: Hungarian in the Primary Schools of the Dual Monarchy (Budapest, 2013).

42. Ágoston Berecz, “The Languages of Village Governments in the Eastern Stretches of Dualist Hungary: Rights and Practices,” The Slavonic and East European Review 99, no. 1 (January 2021): 11–14.

43. Albina, August 5/17, 1876; Felicia Mariana Adăscăliței, “Comitatul Zarand (1861–1876)” (PhD diss., Babeș-Bolyai University, 2012), 78; Braniște, Amintiri din închisoare, 34; Ioan Oros alias Rusu, Memorii (Bucharest, 1989), 180; Az 1878. október 19-ére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának naplója (Budapest, 1879), 5:363.

44. Based on Hivatalos Értesítő, supplement to the central bulletin. Note that the figures in columns 3–6 may sum more than the number of job calls because the latter often included two or three languages.

45. “A nyelvismeret,” Erdészeti-Ujság 6 (1902): 169.

46. Katus, Hungary in the Dual Monarchy, 100–101.

47. 152,635/II/1907, Belügyi Közlöny 12 (1907): 516–17. The circular is also mentioned by Seton-Watson, Racial Problems in Hungary, 152.

48. § 7 of Act XXXVIII of 1908, on the regulation of public health.

49. Az 1906. évi május hó 19-ére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának naplója (Budapest, 1908), 20:68–73.

50. MNL–OL, K26, bundle 1,683; Biharvármegye Hivatalos Lapja 8 (1910): 338; Budapesti Orvosi Ujság 5 (1907): 808; Budapesti Orvosi Újság 9 (1911): 750; Magyar Közigazgatás, February 13, 1910, 8.

51. A magyar szent korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása (Budapest, 1915), 4:712–13.

52. Ibid. 490–95.

53. Gusztáv Gratz, A dualizmus kora: Magyarország története, 1867–1918, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1934), 2:323–24; József Ajtay, A nemzetiségi kérdés: A Magyar Társadalomtudományi Egyesület nemzetiségi értekezlete eredményeinek összefoglalása (Budapest, 1914), 14, 20.

54. Az 1910. évi junius hó 21-ére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának naplója (Budapest, 1914), 22:246–47.

55. John Edwards, “Contextualizing Language Rights,” Journal of Human Rights 2, no. 4 (2003): 551–71; Susan Gal, “Polyglot Nationalism: Alternative Perspective on Language in 19th Century Hungary,” Langage et Société 136, no. 2 (June 2011): 34.

56. Tribuna, May 17/29, 1884, 105.

57. MNL–OL K26–1900–1,049.

58. József Szlávy’s notes from January 1873, MNL–OL K26–1873–195; Az 1872. évi september 1-re hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának naplója (Buda, Hungary, 1873), 8:321–23; Dezső Márkus, “Törvényeink és rendeleteink hivatalos kiadása,” Jogtudományi Közlöny 46 (1911): 201; ANA, Fond Primăria orașului Sebeș (inv. 33), 39/1889, 488; Beamten-Zeitung (Sibiu), January 20, 1885.

59. Berecz, “Hungarian, Romanian and German,” 168–70.

60. Alsó-Fehér, Arad, Hunyad, Szolnok-Doboka.

61. Budapesti Napló, May 1, 1900, 8; Budapesti Hirlap, September 28,1900, 18; Tribuna Poporului, April 12/25, 1903, 4; Libertatea, January 9/22, 1904; Magyar Polgár, February 1, 1904, 5; Libertatea, December 18/31, 1904; Libertatea, January 26/February 6, 1904; Libertatea, December 18/31, 1904; Az Ujság, May 31, 1911, 4; Românul (Arad), May 6/19, 1911; Libertatea, May 19/1 June 1, 1911, 2; Libertatea, March 22, 1912, 2; Kemény, ed., Iratok, 4:120; Ion I. Lapedatu, Memorii și amintiri (Iași, Romania, 1998), 119; Petru Oallde, Lupta pentru limbă românească în Banat: apărarea și afirmarea limbii române, la sfîrșitul secolului al XIX-lea și începutul secolului al XX-lea (Timișoara, Romania, 1983), 28; Lucian Petraș, Mihai Veliciu (1846–1921): Studiu și documente (Arad, Romania, 2011), 47.

62. Pesti Hírlap, May 28, 1902, 6.

63. Berecz, Politics of Early Language Teaching.

64. A magyar szent korona országainak 1900. évi népszámlálása (Budapest, 1907), 3:221, 240, 389.

65. Andrew C. Janos, The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary 1825–1945 (Princeton, 1982), 94.

66. Romanian National Archives, Caraș-Severin (henceforth, ANCS), Fond Prefectura Județului Caraș 1/1880–81, 68–9; ibid. 37/1898; ibid. 29/1907; Romanian National Archives, Timiș, Fond Prefectura Județului Severin 30/1906, 13–14; ibid. 79/1906, 58–64, 126–27, 132–37, 152–55; ibid. 81/1906, 45–49.

67. Ágoston Berecz, “German and Romanian in Town Governments of Dualist Transylvania and the Banat,” in Carl Bethke, Markian Prokopovych, and Tamara Scheer, eds., Language Diversity in the Late Habsburg Empire (Leiden, Netherlands, 2019), 135–59. See also János Vásárhelyi, Emlékeim. . .: Önéletrajz (Kolozsvár, Romania, 1937), 4; available at http://vladar.eu/download/vasar (accessed January 12, 2023).

68. MNL–OL K26, 91; ibid. 79/1,844 IA 12/1340; Eugen Pavlescu, Meșteșug și negoț la românii din sudul Transilvaniei (sec. XVII–XIX) (Bucharest, 1970), 382–84.

69. Tibor Lesfalvi, “Szlovák társasélet a dualizmus korában, különös tekintettel az olvasóegyletekre” (PhD diss., Eötvös Loránd University, 2016), 90; Antal Huszár and Nicolae Diamandi [pseud. Veritas], A magyarországi románok egyházi, iskolai, közművelődési, közgazdasági intézményeinek és mozgalmainak ismertetése (Budapest, 1908), 285, 292, 296, 322.

70. Ibid. 256–8. On amateur Romanian theater playing in Dualist Hungary, see Ion Breazu, Literatura Transilvaniei: studii, articole, conferințe (Bucharest, 1944), 54; Lizica Mihuț, Transilvania și teatrul arădean până la Marea Unire (Bucharest, 2005), 178–79, 321–22.

71. Romanian National Archives, Hunedoara, Personal Fond Toma Ienciu, folders 4, 5; ibid., Fond Tribunalul Hunedoara, 4/1909.

72. Közgazdasági Értesítő 4 (1909): 108–9.

73. György Tóth, “A biróságok nyelvéről a polgári perrendtartás vonatkozó intézkedéseivel kapcsolatban,” A Jog 21 (1902): 257; ANCS, Fond Tribunalul Caransebeș, Firme Sociale, 2/1876.

74. E.g., ANBN, Fond Societatea Acționară Hebe Sângeorz-Băi, folders 1, 4, 7; ANB, Fond Breasla cizmarilor din Brașov, bundle 24.

75. Tanterv a nem magyar ajku népiskolák számára: az 1868-iki XXXVIII. és az 1879-iki XVIII. t. czikkek értelmében (Budapest, 1879), 12.

76. §§ 7, 60, 78, 83 and 91 of Act XXXV of 1874, on royal notaries public. Requests for permissions to notarize in Romanian and German: MNL–OL K577, 1/1908, 6,136; ibid. 1/1909, 1,213, 1,728.

77. Polgári Törvénykezés 38 (1899): 41–42; Polgári Törvénykezés 45 (1903): 145–46; Polgári Törvénykezés 58 (1909): 157–85.

78. Act XXVI of 1896, on the Hungarian Royal Administrative Court.

79. Berecz, “The Languages of Village Governments,” 21; Népszava, December 23, 1911, 5.

80. MNL–OL K150 1893-VI-15–7,088.

81. Gogolák, “Ungarns Nationalitätengesetze,” 1,285–87.

82. Kemény, ed., Iratok, 2:279; MNL OL K150–1885-II-55559; Kelet, September 7, 1876; Kelet, October 4, 1876; Magyar Polgár, October 20, 1876, 2.

83. MNL–OL K150, 55,559/1885 (bundle 1,857); MNL–OL K148–1892-VI-15–30741; Augustin Vicaș, 25 ani din viața Reuniunei Femeilor Române Sělăjene: 1881–1906 (Șimleul-Silvaniei, 1906), 27–29; Ellenzék, July 25, 1892, 3; Kolozsvár, July 20, 1895, 1; Ellenzék, September 17, 1909, 6.

84. Kemény, ed., Iratok, 5:149.

85. Alan Patten, “Political Theory and Language Policy,” Political Theory 29, no. 5 (2001): 701–2.

86. Deak, Forging a Multinational State, 231.

87. The statutes of the bureau are found in MNL–OL K26–1859–19. On its establishment and later operation, see K26–1868–3; K26–1873–195; K26–1873–1,254; K26–1878–736 (filed under K26–1881–479); K26–1890–1,498; K26–1900–4,442; K26–1900–4,637 (the latter two filed under K26–1902–3,059); Magyarországi Rendeletek Tára 41 (1907): 3.

88. Az 1865-dik évi deczember 10-dikére hirdetett országgyülés képviselőházának irományai (Pest, Hungary, 1868), 6:138; József Ferencz to the prime minister on March 31, 1873, MNL–OL K26–1873–1,254.

89. MNL–OL K26–1873–195; K26–1874–12; K26–1875–91; K26–1884–204; K26–1885–213; K26– 1895–330; K26–1899–452.

90. MNL–OL K26–1873–195; K26–1873–1,254.

91. Petition drafted by Petru Pintea, Greek Catholic priest of Nevrincea, on behalf of his parishioners, April 18, 1907, MNL-OL K184–1912–1907–56,194.

92. Janos, The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 94; MNL-OL K26–1890–1,498.

93. Siebenbürgisch-Deutsches Tageblatt, November 28, 1876; Délvidék, September 4, 1898, 2; Délvidék, February 5, 1899, 2; Délvidék, December 18, 1898; Délvidék, July 30, 1899, 1; Délvidék, October 8, 1899; Délvidék, February 17, 1901, 2; Délvidék, May 26, 1907, 2.

94. MNL-OL K26–1890–1,498.

95. ANCS Fond Primăria orașului Caransebeș 2/1884–93, 94–95, 147/1898–1900, 3, 1/1897–1899, 4/1913–14, 37. The term comes from Laada Bilaniuk, Contested Tongues: Language Politics and Cultural Correction in Ukraine (Ithaca, New York, 2005).

96. Rosina Lozano, An American Language: The History of Spanish in the United States (Oakland, 2018), 113–32.

97. Janina Brutt-Griffler, World English: A Study of its Development (Clevedon, Eng., 2002), 97.

98. József Demmel, Szörnyeteg Felső-Magyarországon: Grünwald Béla és a szlovák–magyar kapcsolatok története (Budapest, 2021), 29, 169–70.

99. See Michael Scheiber, “Covert Multilingualism: The Case of Translation Policy in France and Belgium During the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era,” Across Languages and Cultures 17, no. 1 (June 2016): 123–36.

100. Prefect Milan Zaka’s letter, accompanying the 1902 report of the administrative committee; MNL–OL K26, 1,675.

101. Tamás Antal, Törvénykezési reformok Magyarországon (1890–1900): Ítélőtáblák, bírói jogviszony, esküdtszék (Szeged, Hungary, 2006), 243; ANBN Fond Judecătoria cercuală Rodna 1/1881 [in fact 1891!], 1, 4, 14–15, 18; ANBN Fond Primăria orașului Năsăud I. Juridic, 15/1901, 1, 2, 44, 54–55; Ügyvédek Lapja, December 13, 1902, 8.

102. MNL–OL K26–1900–1,049.