This work is the translation of a study that first appeared in Romanian in 2004, and it is Marius Eppel's first book to appear in English. The author is very knowledgeable about his subject, having also published a full biography of the chief character in the book, Vasile Mangra, and a two-volume collection of his correspondence. Eppel makes substantial use of personal papers and church records.

Vasile Mangra (1850–1918) was a politically active member of the Romanian Orthodox clergy. After some years as a parish priest, then seminary professor in Arad, he emerged as a leader in the Romanian national movement in that city. He took the side of the “activists” (favoring the support of Romanian candidates for the Hungarian parliament) versus the “passivists” in the Romanian National Party. When the party leadership submitted its Memorandum protesting Hungarian nationality policies, Mangra was elected chairman of the substitute executive committee in anticipation of the regular committee members' arrest. He was the chief organizer of the meeting of Hungary's national minority leaders that convened in Budapest in 1895. He organized the Arad County branch of the National Party and worked closely with Eugen Brote in the establishment of the activist paper in Arad, Tribuna Poporului.

In later years, Mangra adopted a more conciliatory position toward the Hungarian government; as the result, he was anathematized by much of the Romanian leadership and press. The chief contribution of this book is to explore the reasons for Mangra's actions. The author shows that Mangra's relationships with Eugen Brote and Count István Tisza were key factors in Mangra's reorientation. Brote departed for Romania to avoid prosecution by the Hungarian government for his role in the Memorandum. There he began an association with the Liberal Party politician Dimitrie Sturdza, finding employment as his estate manager, while continuing his collaboration with Mangra on the newspaper. In his article series “Points of Orientation” in 1897, Brote argued for “benevolent reserve” toward the Hungarian government. The inauguration of the new Orthodox Bishop of Arad two years later brought Mangra together with Tisza when both made conciliatory public remarks at this event. Several Romanian associates in and outside Hungary, including four-time Romanian Prime Minister Dimitrie Sturdza, a supporter of the alliance with Austria-Hungary, encouraged Mangra to cultivate relations with the Hungarian leadership.

Mangra's contacts helped ensure official confirmation of his appointment as Orthodox Vicar in Oradea in 1900. Becoming less engaged in Romanian national politics at this time, he remained in close correspondence with Brote and participated with him in a meeting about Romanian politics at Sturdza's estate in 1907 that confirmed the option to participate in the Hungarian system. In 1910, Mangra chose to accept candidacy for the Hungarian parliament as a member of Tisza's Party of Labor. This decision, and his successful election, ensured Mangra's castigation in the Romanian press and his expulsion from the Romanian Academy (on the instigation of partisan opponents of Sturdza, who had nominated him), but he argued that it was in the interest of the church to collaborate with the authorities. Both factions of the Romanian national movement enjoyed subsidies from the main political parties in Romania, so it is clear that the Romanian establishment was hedging its bets.

Mangra reached the apex of his career with his election and confirmation as Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania in 1916, shortly before the Romanian invasion of Transylvania. Both the Orthodox and Greek Catholic bishops (the former led by Mangra) issued declarations of loyalty to Hungary, denouncing the Romanian action. Eppel emphasizes that Mangra used the occasion of his parliamentary speeches to criticize Hungarian policies toward the Romanian minority, and he also supported Romanian positions during the unsuccessful negotiations between Tisza and the Romanian minority leadership on the eve of World War I. Eppel argues that Mangra was a “visionary” who saw himself as fulfilling a historical role in Hungarian–Romanian reconciliation. The author neither extols nor condemns Mangra for his actions.

This is an important addition to the Romanian scholarship on Romanian minority politics in the late dualist period that departs from the polemics about Mangra and, by extension, other moderates. The translation does not do justice to the work's seriousness. There are infelicities that betray a lack of familiarity with English terminology in this field, like the book's use of comitatens for county, and occasional mistranslation of other words.