Andrei Şaguna and “The Organic Statute” – III.1 The political missions in 1848-1849
III. ANDREI ŞAGUNA – BISHOP OF TRANSYLVANIA
III.1 The political missions in 1848-1849
III.1.1 The year 1848 in Transylvania
When the reforming ideas of the revolution in France of February 24, 1848, reached on March 13, Vienna and on March 15, Pest, it was natural that their echo came to Transylvania too. The revolutionary movements spread all over the three Romanian historical provinces: in Moldavia the revolution was quickly shifted and in Wallachia the revolutionaries were in power between June and September 1848; in Transylvania, where the contradictions were more numerous and bigger, the unrest was stronger. Here the revolution lasted until 1849.
Between the borders of the Austrian Empire the nationalism and the liberalism witnessed extreme forms by the Magyars: Batthyány government declared that they wanted the reconstruction of medieval Hungary, which included Transylvania, Croatia, and other territories. Based on the legitimacy of the historical right, the Magyar political leaders were leaving aside the ethnic and natural rights. According to their theory, there were “historical peoples” and “non-historical peoples” and only the former had absolute rights to a political state life, while the members of the latter had to integrate and to become constituting members of the “historical” or “political” people. Recognizing and legislating the existence of a sole and only political nation – the Magyar one -, rejecting the idea of any territorial or institutional autonomy for the peoples which were not Magyar, by virtue of preserving state integrity of St. Stephan Crown territory, the nobles, leaders of the revolution in Pest made a mistake, understanding the multinational historical state just as a Magyar national state. Thus, the non-Magyar nations from Hungary were deprived and rejected from their political affirmation, as equals in a new state which they wished to be a democratic one.
Those who felt called to take a stand toward the revolutionary ideas which had reached Transylvania gathered in a hurry at Cluj, where between March 18 and 23 the opinions inspired from Pest coagulated in the sense of the unification of Transylvania with Hungary. But finally Simeon Bărnuţiu imposed himself as the ideologist of the Romanian revolution in Transylvania. He composed “an inspiring proclamation”, which moved among the young Romanian intellectuals. “A determined and precise direction was given to all the Romanians by Bărnuţiu’s proclamation of Sibiu and only to it can be assigned the reaction of the Romanians of Transylvania against the unification [with Hungary].” The proclamation “reached its culminating point when it was suggested that the Romanians must meet themselves in national conferences, where they decide that the unification of Transylvania should not be made, until the Romanian nation is not received among the other regnicolar [privileged] nations of the country.” The threat of the Romanians’ national existence, which the militant Magyar nationalism represented, convinced the majority of the Romanians – in spite of their sympathy for the Magyars’ political and economic liberalism – to support the cause of the Habsburgs. They were to eventually obtain, by this demonstration of loyalty toward the dynasty, the accomplishment of their aspirations: national unity and autonomy within the monarchy.
On April 3, 1848, the Saxon University (the Diet of the Saxons of Transylvania) recognized the Romanians living on the “Fundus Regius” a series of rights. It was the Saxons’ attempt to cooperate, because they were afraid to lose their historical privileges, if the unification of Transylvania and Hungary would take place. So they needed the Romanians’ support, opposing the Magyars.
While the Orthodox vicar was in Karlowitz for the consecration ceremony, Sibiu became an important revolutionary centre. Romanian revolutionaries from different Transylvanian counties gathered at Sibiu, encouraged by the Saxon opposition. There, Avram Iancu, Timotei Cipariu and other revolutionary leaders decided to summon a national congress at Blaj, on April 18/30, the very day when Andrei Şaguna was to be consecrated bishop. The government of Cluj was in a difficult position. Trying to stop an ample social movement Governor József Teleki forbade the meeting. Continuing the tradition, he passed any political responsibility on behalf of the Greek Catholic and Orthodox bishops. As the Orthodox bishop had already left for Karlowitz, the governor asked the consistory of Sibiu and the Greek Catholic Bishop Ioan Lemeni of Blaj to forbid the faithful to go to Blaj on April 18/30, announcing – for a change – an approved meeting going to take place on May 3/15.
In spite of the authorities’ interdiction and of the Greek Catholic bishop’s sampling to dissipate the 6,000 people gathered in the town square of Blaj, the intellectuals organized the meeting on April 18/30. Bărnuţiu held a temperate speech, urging people to avoid any violence and rebellion toward the authorities, and announcing the great future assembly of May 3/15. The meeting was successful because his speech “pleased even the Magyar commissioners” who gave the participants “certificates of good conduct” which provided their security on the way home.
After this first meeting held without official approval, Governor József Teleki arrived on April 21/May 3 at Sibiu, to talk to General Anton Puchner the commander of the imperial troops in Transylvania and to the opposition. Teleki’s firm declaration concerning the unconditionally voting of the unification of Transylvania with Hungary in the Diet of Cluj stirred general perplexity. In this context, a Saxon delegation went in audience to the governor in order to sustain the recognition of the traditional autonomy of the Saxons from “Fundus Regius” after the eventual unification too.
Waiting for the moment of the following people’s meeting, approved to be held on May 3/15 at Blaj, everybody looked for the Orthodox bishop, designed by the authorities to preside over the assembly together with the Greek Catholic bishop. Yet the intellectuality did not had time to meet him during the two years of vicarship at Sibiu, they trusted Andrei Şaguna more than Ioan Lemeni, who had too acid controversies with Simeon Bărnuţiu.
III.1.2 May 3/15, 1848: the claim of the legal recognition of the Romanian nation and Church
A week before Easter, while at Karlowitz, Andrei Şaguna was informed by the commander of the imperial troops of Transylvania that the organization of a people’s assembly in Blaj under the bishops’ presidency was approved: “I received from Baron Puchner the general commander three notices, by which I was let known that the government of Transylvania approved a general assembly of our Romanian nation irrespective of confession to be held at Blaj and that I shall preside over together with the Greek Catholic Bishop Lemeni. […] and having received my episcopal consecration on the Sunday of St. Thomas – that day, after lunch I left home …”
“Everybody’s eyes were on him.” The intellectuality of Transylvania lead by Simeon Bărnuţiu gathered at Sibiu and “waited for [Andrei Şaguna] like for Messiah. Arriving, before the meeting, he was received pompously by the Romanians irrespective of confession as it had never happened at Sibiu before.” Even the Saxon national guard of Sibiu came to meet him. The Orthodox bishop’s warm reception was due to the fact that the Greek Catholic Bishop Ioan Lemeni has lost his popularity following the suing to court of a group of students and teachers from Blaj, lead by Simeon Bărnuţiu. This is why “the national intelligentsia did everything to have him [Andrei Şaguna] on their side – the national cause.” The Saxons felt their privileged historical state is in danger and “sensed in the bishop the main leader in the difficult fight which was to take place”. Accepting with gratitude and thanking for the “honour manifestations”, the new bishop wanted to let everybody know his political slogan he was faithful to along the revolution and all his entire life: loyalty toward the Habsburg dynasty.
The historical documents quoted above show undoubtedly that Bishop Andrei Şaguna did not place him as a leader of political affairs in 1848, but he was urged by the civil rulers of the time to take the leadership. Second, he was supported by the political leaders of different confessions and nationalities, because he was considered – in their view – a personality of the Transylvanian area who could best represent their interests.
Yet, the Communist-nationalist mystification eluded and even contradicted grossly these documents: “Although, before this [the assembly of May 3/15 from Blaj] he had already left for Karlowitz for consecration, he gave orders to the consistory of Sibiu that a circular letter should be sent all over Transylvania by which the representatives of the clergy and laity should be summoned for the great assembly.”
It was not Andrei Şaguna who had planned the assembly, but the intellectuals; it was not he who gave orders to the consistory to send a circular letter to the clergy and the faithful, but the government of Cluj. He was announced just in Karlowitz about the meeting, and was made responsible for its good display. The fact that before consecration he had been sent west of Transylvania, at Deva and the surrounding area, to temper the peasants stirred by the revolutionary spirit, proves that he was involved in enough responsibilities and problems to have no time for political plans by the side of the revolutionary intellectuals, excepting the case the authorities requested him to involve in social-political matters. As a matter of fact, such a political activity resembling that of the revolutionary intellectuals was not on his mind, objectively speaking, because the bishop either Orthodox or Greek Catholic had a different status as compared to the intellectuals, the bishops were not allowed to organize political meetings and gatherings without the state authorities’ previous consent. Not in the least, the multitude of ecclesiastical problems of the eparchy was serious reason for reflection and action priority to any revolutionary action.
Thus, to describe Andrei Şaguna as “a revolutionary of 1848” is at least unrealistic. The time spent among the Serbians, at Karlowitz and then at Werschetz, had a major role in defining Andrei Şaguna’s personality: seeing and living among the rivalries and injustices between the Romanians and the Serbians, he felt how far those things from the spirit of the Gospels were; the more as he strongly believed in God and dedicated himself to Him, serving the Gospel. To exacerbate the concept of nationalism was an extreme political act, not a Christian one. So “he could never become one of them [the revolutionary intellectuals] because he could never make the idea of nationality his master, as they had done. He viewed the national movement both in 1848 and later on as only one aspect of the complex process of social change. Although he recognized the idea of nationality as the dominant motive force in contemporary Europe, he consistently measured its aspirations and accomplishments against what were for him ‘eternal values’ – the teachings of Christianity and those worldly ideas that had already proved their validity in the long course of human development. Consequently, he believed that whatever progress the Rumanian nation might make would depend upon the welfare of the Orthodox Church and loyalty to the Habsburg dynasty.”
On April 24/May 6, at Sibiu took place preliminary talks concerning the future assembly of Blaj; the Orthodox bishop participated in. He accepted the principles formulated by Simeon Bărnuţiu, but insisted on an oath of faithfulness towards the House of Habsburg.
A day before the meeting, on May 2/14, 1848, in the cathedral of Blaj, Bărnuţiu presented the priorities of the Romanians once more, as at the previous meeting of April 18/30, this time before the intellectuals. The speech, a long, impressive one, had an obvious nationalist and anti-Magyar character. Historical, political, legal arguments combined in a whole which could be understand only by people of a certain educational level. Of course, Bărnuţiu’s acid speech was grounded in Lajos Kossuth’s affirmations which made other small peoples of the monarchy be afraid: “The Magyars started their own job with all forces, namely to Magyarize everybody.”
The ending of this speech, apart from the rejection of the confessional matter which had split the Romanians so much, and the magnifying of the concept of nationality which had to become the first, shaped the idea that the intellectuals showed suspicion toward the service of the hierarchs of Transylvania as representatives of their people, after 1700: “My goal is not to call the Romanians to unite from a confessional point of view, but to national unification […] you cannot bring the Romanians to a greater confusion more easily than using the confessional proselytism […]. What partakes to the Union [with Rome] or its opposite, is a matter of consciousness, it must be let on behalf of every Romanian’s soul […]. So the Romanians should not try any religious union, but strengthen the ties of the national unification […] because the problem of nation cannot be solved quarrelling here on earth, over things which are not defined in heaven either […]. Out of this solemn union and out of the obligation toward the national cause it follows, that the Romanians should not entrust their cause only to the bishops anymore. In the last hundred and fifty years, since we knew in detail the events in the life of the Romanians, the bishops assumed the cause of the Romanian nation; and look: the nation did not make any progress …”
This speech would suffice to understand why the intellectuals of 1848 in Transylvania will deny Andrei Şaguna, later in years. Although Bishop Andrei mastered as well as Bărnuţiu the elocution and the law, he never had such an accent, even in his most biting standpoints. Bărnuţiu’s slogan “the nationality is our last liberty” was not by far identical with Andrei Şaguna’s principles. Actually, Bărnuţiu was an idealist, even in politics: “he did not have an education for the practical life as it was in the world; on the contrary he was isolated. His world was made up of Kant’s philosophy, his motifs were a logical consequence in which he got stuck as a former teacher of philosophy, and concerning the procedures of the political matters he, as a lawyer, could not abandon Justinian’s Code, as if Transylvania would be governed by Roman consuls only.”
As he shall define himself, Bishop Andrei was rather a patriot than a nationalist and this also taking into account his position, as a spiritual leader. His love for the own people did not exclude the respect for other ethnic groups and nations, on the contrary: “[…] I wished and wish with all my heart that the ground of all our deeds, as Romanians, should be the peace, harmony, good understanding with all our fellow inhabitants; I have done my best for this, on any occasion …” Moreover, the idea of nation represented for him something differently as for the intellectual politicians at the time: “Andrei Şaguna’s view on nation was at a distance from the theoreticians of the nationalism of his time, considering that the nation is a law in itself and not the reason and the supreme goal.”
The following day, on May 3/15, an assembly of about 40,000 people approved the programme in sixteen points, which contained the principles stated by Simeon Bărnuţiu in the previous months. Simeon Bărnuţiu and Andrei Şaguna dominated the assembly. “It appears that here he [the bishop] did create the secret and lasting tie with his people.” Both bishops, the Orthodox and the Greek Catholic, had a moderate attitude, meant to mitigate the nationalist accent of the programme. First, it was claimed the legal recognition of the Romanian nation in Transylvania, having equal political rights with the privileged nations; second, it was made reference concerning the legal recognition of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches. Generically entitled “the Romanian Church”, the two confessions went over the barriers which separated them after 1700 and this occurred within a vast, popular background. Thus, the point two of the decision of the second meeting of May 4/16, 1848, reads as follows: “The Romanian nation declares that the Romanian Church, regardless of denomination, is and shall remain free and independent of any other [local] Church and shall enjoy the same rights and benefits as the other Churches of Transylvania. It demands the restoration of the Romanian Metropolitanate and the annual general synod, in accordance with its ancient rights. In this synod there shall be lay and ecclesiastical deputies, and here Romanian bishops shall be freely elected by a majority of votes, without candidature.” The historians state that this desideratum of re-establishing of the Romanian Metropolitanate and of the annual general synod was the initiative of the Orthodox bishop. The other points of the programme had social character, first of all dissolving serfdom, followed by economical and cultural ones.
The Romanian ideologists of the revolution in Transylvania did not intend to undermine Hungary’s state unity, they only asked that the Romanian nation should be consulted, being a part of this state. If the claims of Blaj had been accomplished, this would have allowed that the Romanian nation manifest its political character within the administrative, legal, religious and educational autonomy. “In 1848, the Slovaks and the Romanians aimed at the existence of several political nations as state making individualities, thus Hungary’s political institutional federalization, while the Croatians and the Serbians openly reclaimed the territorial federalization too.”
The assembly from Blaj displayed in three meetings. Before the first meeting, Bishop Andrei organized a moment of prayer. At his invitation the representatives of the civil authorities took also part in. Then the instructions of the commissaries were read and explained to everybody. In the second meeting, Bishop Andrei held a speech in which he urged the people to keep all their duties towards the nobles, until the serfdom shall have been abolished by law. In this meeting he was elected president of the Romanian National Board/Permanent Committee, “the first standing political organization the Rumanians [of Transylvania] had ever had”, and of the Romanian delegation that was to go to the emperor. The delegation which had to represent the assembly before the Diet of Transylvania of Cluj was to be lead by Greek Catholic Bishop Ioan Lemeni.
On May 4/16, at the end of the meetings, the bishops as co-presidents “signed a certificate in Hungarian language for the people, as a passport for the travel security.” In order to eliminate extremes, they were asked to work out a circular letter, so that the peasants should wait peacefully the solution to their situation. As the Greek Catholic bishop did not submit the circular letter of the Orthodox one, each of them addressed their own faithful. Andrei Şaguna wrote in the same conciliatory spirit, which in the intellectuals’ view was not enough nationalist: “I give you an episcopal advice to live further as until now, in the fear of God, faithful to our emperor, obeying and following the authorities and keep in mind soon the serfdom of the poor people will end – obey your landowners until serfdom will be legally abolished.” Although “bishop Lemeni also wrote a circular letter to his faithful, which contained not few invectives toward the Greek Eastern Church”, out of its context we understand that the period of Greek Catholic proselytism had already partially gone at least for the moment: “you will teach and urge the people to stay closed in faith; you should not understand that in this assembly of Blaj it was decided that from now on we are one in faith; you should only understand that the Uniates and the non-Uniates [Orthodox] should be like brothers of one nation, enjoying the same rights from now on.”
Bishop Andrei’s conclusion about the assembly was that “everything went on well”. Here is the description made by the Hungarian government councillor Ludovic Szabó, and the supreme country officer Nicolae Bànffy, on what at Blaj happened: “This uneducated people, which numbered more than 20,000 and who made the great majority during the meeting behaved wisely and morally, an admirable circumstance […] due just to the wise guidance of His Holiness, Bishop Andreiu Şaguna, strong in body and soul; the punctual accomplishment of his measures can be assigned to his great popularity.”
In the interpretation of the facts by our contemporary historian Keith Hitchins “Şaguna pondered a given situation to determine what was both right – that is, consistent with the ‘spirit of the times’, the spiritual principles of Orthodoxy, and the prerogatives of the civil authority – and feasible, in that order. Only then he did act. Caution and deliberation were qualities that rarely produced a popular hero, but Şaguna’s directness elicited the respect of friends and opponents alike among the intellectuals, and he wielded great influence over the peasantry by virtue of his ecclesiastical office.”
In spite of the Romanians’ moderate claims, the answer to their demands expressed at Blaj will be not according to their expectancies: on May 17/29, 1848, the Diet of Cluj ignored totally the Romanians and voted in its Article I the Law of unification of Transylvania with Hungary, in order to empower the Article VII of the Hungarian Diet of Bratislava which adopted the April Laws. On June 10, 1848, the Law of unification was to be signed by the Emperor Ferdinand too.
III.1.3 Andrei Şaguna – leader of the first delegation at Vienna and Budapest
As the assembly of Blaj had decided, Bishop Andrei Şaguna was to be the leader of the Romanian delegation to the emperor. Because he did not come to make the fidelity oath to the government of Cluj, the members of the delegation left for Vienna, while the bishop went firstly to Cluj. “On May 7/19, I traveled from Blaj to Cluj; arriving I went to see the governor, Count Teleki, whom I found experiencing the greatest perplexity for the unrest which had started, and this is why only after several days since my arrival could he summon a meeting so that I could sworn. […] from Cluj I had to go back to Sibiu to prepare such a distant journey.” Coming back to Sibiu, the bishop had to protect the Romanian National Committee – whose president he had been appointed by the assembly of Blaj – from the possible suspicions: “here I found some of our intelligentsia who asked me, as a president of the National Committee appointed by the assembly of Blaj, to assure the country government about the patriotic mission of this National Committee, so that it should not be under suspicion. In this spirit I wrote a paper to the government …”
Arriving at Vienna, he found out from the members of the delegation that some of these went to Innsbruck “where His Majesty [Emperor Ferdinand] was; on May 30, they were received in audience and drew a national petition followed by an imperial resolution of June 11, 1848 …” This resolution was passed a day after the Law of unification of Transylvania with Hungary of the Diet of Cluj of May 17/29, 1848, was signed by the emperor. Lajos Batthyány, the chairman of Hungarian government and Paul Anton III Eszterházy, the minister of foreign affairs played a direct role in shattering the action of the first Romanian delegation to the monarch. Under the circumstances, the emperor did not accept the basic premises of the Romanian delegation’s petition: “After the petition was solved in the Article VII of the Magyar Diet by the unification unanimously voted in the Diet of Transylvania and sanctioned by me, I enjoy when I can assure the present delegates that I complied with all their wishes, because the Law from the Article VII gives the same rights and liberties to all the inhabitants of Transylvania, irrespective of their nationality, language and confession; their future prosperity depends on the enforcement of this Law …” The claims from Blaj had in view corporate rights for the Romanian nation and Church and the emperor’s resolution made reference to some rights which anyway were a utopia, as long as the Court had signed a series of oppressing measures against the non-Magyar populations from the historical Hungary (Croatians, Germans, Romanians, Serbians). So the Romanians’ desiderates clearly expressed in the national assembly from Blaj by the programme of sixteen points were totally ignored.
Consequently, “the deputies and I found necessary to go to Innsbruck and petition once more to His Majesty…” The second delegation drew another petition conceived by the bishop himself, in broader terms, containing about the same demands. The delegation was received by the emperor on June 23, but the answer was not far from the previous one: the laws adopted by the Magyar Diet satisfy at great extent the Romanian’s claims and the Romanian nationality will be pledged by the Magyar government by a special law. The emperor recommended them to be in touch with the Magyar government of Pest for negotiations and details.
The honest-minded bishop took the emperor’s answer for granted, believing that he attended the official inauguration of a new policy of the Court toward the numerous nationalities within the monarchy. The reality was different. After the Hungarian constitution/April Laws was signed by the Emperor Ferdinand, on April 11, 1848, a “modern dualism” was set up inside the monarchy. The leadership of the Magyar revolution aimed at achieving a compromise and an alliance with the “constitutional” emperor. Between March and September 1848, the greatest majority of the Magyar revolutionary leaders understood not to break up entirely the relationships with Vienna. This was explained by the necessity to crush the resistance of the non-Magyar populations.
Andrei Şaguna’s following steps were a consequence of his trust in the emperor’s word. Even the Romanian Permanent Committee of Sibiu, much more reserved toward the collaboration with the Austrians, showed some interest in the emperor’s answer of June 23. By the end of June 1848, the bishop and some members of the delegation left for Pest “to become more familiar with the situation.” There, he was announced by the authorities to take part in the session of the Diet, or he will be punished: “the Diet of Pest was summoned on July 1, 1848, and I was announced and participated in the meetings a few times…” He also took part – being appointed as a member by the Diet of Cluj – in the works of the Regnicolar Committee, which was to finalize the details concerning the unification of Transylvania with Hungary.
But “Şaguna’s stay at Pest, with the so-called members of the delegation, raised suspicions and bewilderment among some of his countrymen.” The extreme anti-Magyar and nationalist attitude of the revolutionary intellectuals excluded any collaboration with the government of Pest, especially after the unification of Transylvania with Hungary has been sealed. A moderate and “naïve” such as Andrei Şaguna, was locked at as a traitor in their eyes. One of the delegates who remained at Vienna calmed down his community: “The Romanian nation can enjoy having an advisor who by his rank and authority can do a lot for it. Any blame of defects which might fall upon him in my and other people’s view are improper; the future will discover all this and the Romanian nation will better come to know its real patriots and nationalists, who have worked more for its good …” The bishop himself, sure on his open-mindedness and goodwill, answered back firmly to the accusations: “I dare so, before those who want to know, that there is no power to turn me away from the path of justice, common sense and peace; there is no power to distract me from my goal, namely accomplishing the happiness of my beloved nation. Irrespective of the gossip and slander, I shall not let myself worried, because ‘tuta conscientia, juge convivium’. Peace is in my soul with all my deeds …”
One of Andrei Şaguna’s first actions taken at Pest was to counteract the negative image the Romanian revolutionaries had there: “The ones who have gone to Pest, had to fight too much to defend our men […]; because the government of Transylvania described them before the Hungarian Ministry as trouble makers.” Governor Teleki accused the Permanent Committee of Sibiu as undermining, betraying the Court and promoting pan-Romanian movements meant to lead to the creation of a Dacian-Romanian state, made up of all the Romanian provinces.
In July 1848, the government of Cluj sent to Apuseni Mountains 300 Szeklers and 115 soldiers from the imperial army to arrest the Romanian leaders of the revolution.
Andrei Şaguna remained optimistic and he encouraged the believers by pastoral letters to trust the Magyar government led by Lajos Batthyány, because it was looking after their prosperity. Guided by open-mindedness and good intentions, he urged the people by a circular letter sent from Pest: “as I have always told you to live like brothers with all the other peoples of Transylvania, so I advise you all fatherly now to be good, to be as you have always been, faithful to the emperor, to the country, obeying your masters. My beloved, let’s have fraternal love among us and toward the other nations which live with us; because God has liked that we are several nations in one country, and so can enjoy together the good, being brothers, sharing with other nations the goodness and sweetness of our country…”
After several meetings of the Regnicolar Committee designed to state the way the unification of Transylvania and Hungary will be like, which took place in July and August 1848, the Magyar majority decided do not grant additional laws for the Romanians, because the Hungarian legislation and the unification themselves offered equality of rights for all citizens. Bishop Andrei declared that this solution could not be accepted by the Romanians, who wanted their own legislation meant to guarantee the nationality, the independence of the two Churches, Orthodox and Greek Catholic, and the use of the Romanian language in the public life. Proving courage worth admiring he criticized the unification and opposed the measures established by the Regnicolar Committee which were not in favour of the Romanians, asking that the claims of the programme of Blaj shall be satisfied. He also protested firmly against the military executions which were carried out in the Apuseni Mountains against the peasants who did not pay the quitrents imposed by the commissary of Transylvania.
This critical situation divided the leaders of the Romanian national movement because of the different opinions on immediate solutions and on the political future. The fact that Bishop Andrei, who had been appointed president of the National Committee, remained at Pest for negotiations with the Magyars made the partition strong and public. The consistory of Sibiu was blamed for sabotage against the goals of the revolution because of the quickness with which it spread the decrees of the Magyar government, many contradicting the declarations of the intellectuals. Although in the beginning the National Committee accepted the idea of the unification with Hungary, as a last solution of the desideratum of the revolution, when it was made clear that it did not care too much on the Romanians’ claims, some members of the Committee blamed directly the Orthodox bishop protesting against him, accusing him to have exceeded his competences assigned by the assembly of Blaj, which limited themselves only to the presentation of the programme of sixteen points to the emperor.
The Austrian Empire, encouraged by the victories obtained by Prince Alfred Windischgrätz (Prague, June 1848) and General Josef Radetzky (who defeated the Sardinian troops at Custozza, on July 25, and entered Milan on August 7), took the offensive against the Magyar revolution. On August 12, the imperial Court returned to Vienna from Innsbruck. By a manifesto of October 3, 1848, the Crown declared a substantial part of the revolutionary legislation in Hungary void, dissolved the Diet of Pest, and introduced a stage of siege. In defiance of these royal decrees, the Hungarian Diet declared itself in permanent session. Batthyány resigned, but a committee of national defense under Kossuth took the control, authorized the establishment of a Hungarian army, and issued paper money to fund it. Kossuth decided the valid promulgation and enforcement of laws, without the emperor’s sanction.
Against the background of Vienna’s courage to face Pest, the Romanians became more important in the Court’s eyes, as Austrians’ potential allies against the Magyars. In Transylvania the situation was tenser and tenser. Avram Iancu – the military hero from the Apuseni Mountains – emphasized the righteousness of the Romanians’ claims; the Magyars counterattacked and resorted to repressive measures with the purpose to discourage the Romanians. In August 1848, the commissioner of Pest in Transylvania Baron Miklós Vay had ordered the arresting of the Romanian Permanent Committee of Sibiu. In this situation Baron Anton Puchner, the commander-in-chief of the imperial troops in Transylvania approved a third meeting of the Romanians at Blaj, for September. At that meeting the Romanians protested firmly against the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, and decided their military organization. A new National Committee was elected, with Simeon Bărnuţiu as a president.
By the middle of September 1848 Bishop Andrei was convinced about Hungarians’ lack of sincerity; they did not intend to grant national rights to the Romanians, as the negotiations from Pest became merely formal: “political affairs became more and more fatal every day, and we, the Romanian men were looking for ways to come back home.”
The nationalities’ brotherhood declared in spring turned into history in autumn. On October 30, 1848, imperial troops entered Vienna and suppressed a workers’ uprising, effectively ending the revolution everywhere in the empire except Hungary, where Kossuth’s army had overcome Josip Jelačić’s forces. In a proclamation of October 10, 1848, Kossuth had told the Romanians to join the Hungarian programme, or otherwise – he threatened – the Transylvanian Romanians shall be destroyed, if they do not submit to his armies. Since October 1848 the civil war – the bloodiest conflict in the Europe of its day – broke out in Hungary and Transylvania.
III.1.4 The second political delegation to Court; the civil war and the end of the revolution in Transylvania
“Overwhelmed, I arrived at Sibiu on September 26/October 8, and there I found out that Baron Puchner, the commander-in-chief […] set up a Romanian National Committee, so-called ‘the peace maker’.” Bishop Andrei, hurt by some of its members’ mistrust toward his activity at Pest, broke any contact with the new National Committee led by Simeon Bărnuţiu. As a matter of fact, many Romanians accused him that he sympathized with the Magyar revolutionaries.
When Andrei Şaguna arrived home after a long absence “the country was boiling, the enmities between the peoples reached the culmination; the cruelties toward the Romanians were terrifying; the bloody courts and the pitchforks were all over the country, all was at work. Fierce terrorism ruled everywhere.” The first measure the bishop asked from Commander-in-chief Anton Puchner was protection for the citizens.
On October 6/18, 1848, Baron Puchner repudiated by a public proclamation the authority of the Magyar government in Transylvania and proclaimed himself as a governor. “Standing openly against the Magyars, he let the Romanians and the Saxons defend themselves against the Magyars.” The intellectuals responded affirmatively the request to support the imperial army, according to the negotiations from the meeting of September, at Blaj. Bishop Andrei answered also positively: “To this proclamation […] which I received, I sent a circular letter on October 7/19, in which I drew our faithful’ attention to stay armed against abuses and use the weapons just to defend peace and good order in the country …”
By virtue of the successes obtained by Puchner in bringing Transylvania under the imperial control using the Romanian army, he began to treat the Romanian leaders, the members of the new National Committee, scornfully. The Orthodox bishop was the favourite again, for his moderate attitudes: “The fury of the stirred spirits among nations was so frightening, that Commander-in-chief Puchner did not have the force to tame them, so he resorted on moral means and directed an official address to me, No. 4866, of December 9, 1848, in order to invite the Romanian honourable men to a meeting at Sibiu, which I did, summoning the meeting on December 16/28 …”
So it was summoned a new meeting of smaller proportions; almost two hundred and fifty representatives gathered. The meeting’s opening speech held by Andrei Şaguna as president is “one of his most important political speeches”. On this occasion he made public his view on the nationalism and liberalism, the fashionable political currents: “The liberal feeling is the aspiration toward the free development of state and citizen’s references; the national feeling is the special sympathy for all those who belong to the same nation and language. […] But the liberal and national feelings remain priceless if considered abstract. If it is something which will bear fruits – a fact that theoretically works – it must be based on morality, because the most beautiful social virtues are derived from it. Therefore, when the liberal-national feeling is based on morality, it is not limited to join its own side – because this may be lead by selfishness or separatism – but it expands furthermore, includes all the state institutions and one’s motherland, and it chooses to be guided especially by love upon the motherland. This is why I dare glorify the liberal and national feeling only when it is based on morality and is advised by the love for the motherland.” In this speech Bishop Andrei also expressed his conviction that people’s prosperity and happiness have their origins in faith and morality, as he was to sustain many times that faith, morality and science were the only springs of his personal successes: “Brothers! Only religion and morality can make us happy; if we are able to honour these duties for ever, then God and the emperor will be on our side, and with their help we will be able to shatter the chains of our slavery and let them as souvenirs to the future, free generations.”
It was drafted a new programme of thirteen points, mostly resembling the one of sixteen points from Blaj; Andrei Şaguna was once more assigned to lead the Romanians’ delegation to Court, to the new emperor, because on December 2, 1848, Emperor Ferdinand abdicated in favour of his nephew Francis Joseph I (1848-1916).
The Magyar forces regrouped quickly and reassumed the offensive. The Magyar revolutionary army – entrusted to the leadership of General József Bem at the end of 1848, and in 1849 – advanced quickly in Transylvania. Alfred Windischgrätz, the commander of all imperial armies employed in the fight against Hungary wanted to avoid the confusion in recognizing publicly that Austria needed the intervention of the Russian troops from Wallachia which came out victoriously against the revolutionaries from Bucharest. Bishop Andrei understood that his people was in a great danger and advised Governor Puchner to apply for Russian help. The answer was that an Austrian could not do this, but he allowed the bishop to go to Bucharest and ask unofficially for help in the name of his nation. The National Committee was discontent again, because the political issues were discussed with the bishop, not with it. Finally the intellectuals were obliged to accept the plan, when Andrei Şaguna refused to assume the responsibility before his people, if the Hungarian army was to be victorious in Transylvania. This is how the Orthodox bishop got involved in a new mission of saving his people from a massacre, before going with the delegation to Court.
So Bishop Andrei left Sibiu for Bucharest following to head to Moldavia, Bukovina and Galicia to Vienna. Arriving at Curtea de Argeş he was obliged to sell his horses and coach to get money for the travel. He was so pinched for money, that – for the first and last time during his ministry – he sent a letter to Braşov “out of special consideration and fatherly care”, by which he applied deliberately for money: “My comfort is that you are familiar with my financial condition and this gives me the courage to ask you, if you wish to support me with money from the church revenues.”
In Bucharest, in spite of the commander of the Tsarist expeditionary corps in Wallachia, General Lüders’ sympathy for the Romanians, he refused any intervention in Transylvania without previous instructions from Saint Petersburg. Yet, the bishop was optimistic after the meeting of December 24: “I hope they will help us, only it wouldn’t be too late.” Bishop Andrei was described before the government of Bucharest as the head of the liberal Transylvanian Romanians and thus one and the same with the Romanian liberal refugees, dangerous for the Romanian régime of the time. For this “the Romanian government of Bucharest not only hurried feverishly to remove Bishop Şaguna, but also escorted him under police guard until he passed the border. His Excellency Metropolitan Neofit of Wallachia received him in Christ’s brotherly love, facilitating all he needed.”
The faithful were again encouraged by a circular letter to go on living “in virtue and a little patience”, until “everything turns for the good of our emperor and of course, our good.”
After the mission to ask for Russian help was accomplished, Bishop Andrei regained the health and went on his journey, stopping at Czernowitz, where he became more familiar with the Romanians living there, and especially with the noble family of Hurmuzachi; he was to keep constant friendly relationship with this family.
On January 23/February 4, 1849, he arrived at Olmütz; the seat of the Austrian Court was there since the people’s uprising in Vienna of October 1848. On January 25/February 6, the new Emperor Francis Joseph received the Orthodox bishop of Transylvania in an audience, where he personally presented the wish of the Romanian nation that “Your Majesty show mercy to this loyal nation and grant it constitutional freedom as a source of peace, order and prosperity, which the other peoples of the monarchy will enjoy too.”
At Olmütz Bishop Andrei worked also to draft a new programme, because the one of thirteen points from the assembly of December in Sibiu was no longer valid. At the same time, because of his insistences, all the representatives of the Romanians in the Austrian Monarchy – of Banat, Bukovina and Transylvania – decided to make up one delegation only.
On February 13/25, 1849, the common delegation of all Romanians of the monarchy presented the emperor the new programme. The idea of federalism with enough freedom of self-determination was considered as the only solution to the national issues of the monarchy. The representatives of all Romanians asked the union of the Romanians of Transylvania, Bukovina, Banat, Crişana, Maramureş in one single national body, as an integrating part of the empire, having its own administration, under the jurisdiction of Vienna. The claims were justified based on the ethnic principle, because the Romanians were the oldest and the most numerous nation, of 3,5 million people. The emperor, fighting the government of Pest and still needing the Romanians’ sacrifices, promised to consider the petition in detail and to solve it positively: “I dispose that the petition of the Romanian loyal nation be debated, and I will solve it in the shortest time possible, to its peace and tranquility.”
After the meeting of February 13/25, both the bishop and the members of the delegation were optimistic: “These days, I was a third time by the emperor and asked him for our nation. We always received comforting answers. Now, we are waiting for the resolution. I hope it will give us solace.” What they did not know was that the major decisions concerning the Romanians had already been discussed and decided.
On March 4, 1849, the new imperial constitution for the entire monarchy was decreed. In virtue of the new constitution Hungary was just a province of the Austrian Empire, and was reduced by the formation of its southeastern, partly Serbian territory, the Serbian Vojvodina and the Banat of Timişoara, as a new a separate crwonland. Transylvania and Croatia reverted to the status of separate Lands. This will determine Lajos Kossuth and the Hungarian Diet – moved to Debrecen in early January 1849 – to declare Hungary separated from Austria and the Habsburg Dynasty deposed, in April 1849. Kossuth entitled himself as a governor of the new proclamated Hungarian independent state. He “continued fighting the Austrians everywhere”, because with the beginning of Januar 1849 “the Hungarian revolution was transformed into a war of independence”.
The Romanians’ loyalty toward the Crown along the revolution did not matter at all. Only one paragraph, namely article 74, paragraph first could make them contented. The organization of the Austrian provinces on the criteria of national territories was not accepted and the Romanian nation was not mentioned anywhere, although the Serbians of Vojvodina were granted a high degree of autonomy and the Saxons in “Fundus Regius” kept their privileges. The unification with Hungary was called off, but without mention of the Romanians.
Once more Bishop Andrei and the other members of the delegation tried to mend the situation by a memorandum presented to the Council of Ministers, on March 5, 1849. In this memorandum it was underlined that the Romanian nation addresses its claims as a constitutive part of the monarchy, and as such it wishes to be represented in the parliament of the empire proportionally; all this being in fact for the state interest. The Council of Ministers did not accept any discussion or explanation, but it decided not to communicate the refusal to Bishop Andrei, because the Romanians’ army was still necessary to the monarchy.
Two other petitions were presented to the emperor (on March 12, 1849) and to the Council of Ministers (on March 23, 1849). One of the Romanians discontents was that the same constitution which proclaimed the principle of equal justice, granted the Saxons of Transylvania the same historical privileged situation. Moreover, the Saxons became hostile to the Romanians appearing they had made a covenant with the Magyar rebels.
The Council of Ministers did not show any sign to have received the petitions.
By the end of March 1849 Transylvania was lost for the Habsburg dynasty; the Magyar revolutionary army lead by General József Bem had advanced triumphantly, succeeding to defend the most important border fortresses: Sibiu (on March 11) and Braşov (on March 20). Just on the Apuseni Mountains defended by Avram Iancu the Magyars could not lie their hands.
On April 19, 1849, in the meeting of Debrecen, the Magyars declared their independence. Transylvania was considered as a part of the Magyar state, according to the former Hungarian constitution, the April Laws of 1848: “Hungary united with Transylvania by law with all its neighbouring parts which belong to it declares itself a free European state, independent and self-governing; its territory is indivisible and integrity unprejudiced.”
Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s last public effort on behalf of autonomy was made on April 26, 1849, when he joined the Slovakian and Croatian leaders to present the emperor a joint memorandum urging the federalization of the monarchy. The same day, by coincidence, the revolutionary leader Lajos Kossuth sent from Debrecen a letter to Ioan Dragoş, a deputy of the Hungarian Diet and his emissary in the Apuseni Mountains, in which he shows that the guilty for the Romanians’ insubordination toward the Magyars and for their fight under the Austrian Crown is one single person: Andrei Şaguna “who infamously abused of his high ecclesiastical position and of the people’s trust” and who “degraded himself by betraying his country, a thing that can never be forgiven”. There is a bitter irony: the Transylvanian intellectuals suspected the bishop to have “sold” himself to the Magyars, while the Magyar revolutionaries considered him the only to be blamed because of the Romanians insubordination toward them.
Between April and July 1849 only Avram Iancu resisted the Magyar armies. The imperial army in Transylvania led by Baron Puchner was obliged to withdraw in Wallachia. The Transylvanian intellectuals and other Romanians took refuge at Bucharest too. “Only there, instead of a good reception and support, they were exposed to the harshest persecutions on the part of the Romanian government; it plotted with the commanders of the Russian troops, arresting and mal-treating them savagely.” Consequently, the Romanian delegation from Vienna led by Andrei Şaguna felt obliged to intervenein favour of the arrested intellectuals. They were liberated, except George Bariţiu, who was transferred to Czernowitz. A stranger to confessional or political barriers, the Orthodox bishop interceded personally, especially by the Prime Minister Felix Schwarzenberg, to set Greek Catholic George Bariţiu free – as he was a prisoner of the Russians.
At the beginning of May 1849, at the Emperor Franz Joseph’s demand the coalition of the Austrian and Russian armies was formed, and in June Russian troops attacked from the east and overwhelmed the Hungarian army, the colalition succeeding in defeating the Magyar revolutionary army at Şiria (near Arad), on August 13. By the end of August 1849 almost all the resistance centres of the Magyars were destroyed.
On July 18, 1849, the Council of Ministers finally gave an official answer to the the petition of February 13/25, 1849, of the common delegation of all Romanians of the monarchy to the emperor. It was a negative answer, of course. They were laconically told that all their demands are included in the Constitution of 4 March 1849. That day, the delegation petitioned again to the emperor, hoping for a positive answer. But the emperor’s answer was no more than polite.
During the spring and summer of 1849, until the autumn, Bishop Andrei Şaguna stayed at Olmütz, Prague and Vienna “where he did not miss any opportunity used for the benefit of the righteous cause of Romanians. He did not stop intervening everywhere, wherever necessary, with his moral force and episcopal authority, to draw attention, to obtain competent men’s influence and to pledge the best possible result for the Romanian aspirations.” Although his interventions were ignored, he felt obliged as a spiritual leader of his people to continue to insist: “Transylvania and my eparchy reached the door of desperation, where it still precipitates. To make the Romanian nation get rid of this painful condition which it has never earned is a sacred duty of each Christian. I think that I would sin if I let aside any insignificant means of salvation of my people not used; but when I lost from sight the person that is important for us and can help, then I would make myself guilty of a crime, God shall and I shall take care of it.”
Coming back home in the autumn of 1849, the bishop found his residence totally devastated by the Magyar revolutionaries, who used it as a barrack. The chapel, his personal library made up of more than 3,000 books, even the consistorial archives were turned to ashes: “Seeing that the imperial armies will stifle the civil war soon, by the end of August 1849 I set off through Galicia, Bukovina and Romania. […] Arriving at Sibiu I could not put up at my residence, because it was totally ravaged and filled with prisoners; so the magistrate invited me to live in the Baron Brukenthal’s houses, in Urezului street, where I have spent for three months, until the residence was repaired …”
Later, Bishop Andrei described suggestively the destructions of the bloody year 1849: “As the bishop’s residence was robbed, likewise the most part of our parish churches have been robbed, others were dishonoured or desecrated. The holy icons were profaned; they shot at Jesus Christ’s icon and yelled: ‘he ceased to be the God of the Romanians!’ […] They killed, hang and shot twelve priests and a few thousands Christians because they did not want to rebel against the emperor and to recognize the supremacy of the Magyar nation. This is why they entitled me a proscribed and if they had been able to lie hands on me, they would have tormented me more than the Metropolitan Sava [Branković].”
He was just back home, when one of those who remained to support the Romanians and their cause at Court called the bishop again, because: “Schmerling told me these days, when I was giving him the petition, that the Serbian bishops, if they debate, they won’t be able to decide anything for the Romanians; because to us will be given a proper archbishop. If Your Excellency have a mandate, come so that viris unitis succeed in drawing the resolution.” A realistic and penetrating spirit, Andrei Şaguna answered: “Concerning my journey, I have to notice that even when the whole world might make illusions and have hopes we can receive any resolution for our national cause, I state my opinion and say: the time of resolutions has gone.”
In the autumn of 1848 his only brother died, but the bishop found out the news only at the beginning of 1849, when he was at Olmütz, with the national deputies. He became the owner of a considerable fortune left from his brother, the merchant, as being the only lawful heir. Although the fortune was inherited only partly because of the political unrest, it was a material support so necessary and welcome to such a poor eparchy, as the Eparchy of Sibiu was.
The documents discovered up to now leave a blank space concerning Andrei Şaguna’s sister, Ecaterina, after 1825, when she received the right of free religious practice. “In the year 1849, Ecaterina was not alive. We know this for sure.”
III.1.5 Andrei Şaguna’s social and ecclesiastical actions during the revolution
Although seriously involved in the political missions entrusted to him, the bishop was always interested in what was going on with those who remained home, and for whom he felt extremely responsible.
He urged his priests to show a good Christian behaviour toward the faithful: “I heard the saddest news coming from everywhere. I heard and read from the newspapers how our people are exposed to the most terrible things; the fierce rebels kill them, rob them, and torment them to despair. So both you [the members of the consistory] and the priests do your best to comfort the people, retaining yourself from everything that might cause grief and sorrow. The priests must pray every Sunday for the victory of the imperial armies and calm, according to the texts of liturgical books, until they will receive another special liturgical rule. Out of their faith and piety the people will invite the priests to pray for their deceased; I recommend the clergy to deal with the sacred things so that no complaints will be born by the payment of the religious services.” The authorities were asked to do not any injustice to the Romanian nation, as compared to the historical privileged nations in Transylvania: “The Saxon authorities become more an more hostile to the Romanians in attitude, and do their best to reveal with all their forces and to comment upon the reprisals committed by the Romanian mobs – and all this because the Romanians were forced to; but I wonder who has committed more cruelties, the Romanians or the rebels? There is no one to pity these frightening scenes more than I do; but when about two hundred and fifty villages are turned to ashes, and more ten thousands Romanians have been slaughtered, when many old people, widows and innocent children wander through mountains and forests, on a hard winter, without clothes, hungry and tormented, and when our entire nation is destroyed, then only inhuman wickedness can remind us many times of sole catastrophes […] for to stigmatize the Romanian nation.
What did the Romanian nation have to defend when it rebelled? Nothing, because it had nothing until now – of what a nation ought to have; it rebelled only led by loyalty to the dynasty and support for the entire monarchy, then for constitutional freedom and equal rights [our reference]. Why did it deserve such a hostile treatment from the part of the Saxon nation, so long they fought together for a common cause? When did Romanian nation answer the Saxons evil to evil – although it was cruelly treated by them? Is not it the same nation, which in the assembly of Blaj drew the entire monarchy’s attention for its rare wise, peaceful and brave behaviour? It is very striking that the Saxons sympathize more with the rebels then the Romanians, who rather defend the Saxons than themselves!
[…] I appeal to Your Excellency’s noble feelings, asking humbly not to withdraw your powerful shield from the hardened Romanian nation.
Like the one who has encouraged the innocent nation to go to war, I feel responsible before God and my nation for the blood shed and for the terrible damages suffered by my sons in Christ. My consciousness as a clergyman drives me to beseech Your Excellency to stop the suggestions made by the enemies of my nation to your subordinates – please stop them so that they should not become harmful! At the same time please stop [the negative commentaries of] the Saxon press and be for my nation what you have promised in May, a guardian angel! The glory of having helped an old brave nation – in enmity by many sides – to obtain its rights will not be less than the gratitude the history will show you, for Your Excellency’s heroic deeds.”
Toward the end of the civil war, understanding that the imperial troops will defeat and peace will be established in Transylvania, Bishop Andrei interceded by the authorities to recommend distinguished Romanians, familiar with the Romanian realities of Transylvania, for the positions of commissaries on the foreign commandants and military governors’ side, because the foreigners could have been easily deceived concerning the Romanians. Then, worried “because the imperial army in Transylvania by the advance and by the defeat and dispersion of the insurgents might led to the emergence of bands of robbers and groups of desperate honveds behind the winners – just as it is in Upper Hungary the case – which could worry the areas emptied by the imperial military and endanger the life and property of the common sensed subjects” he suggested the setting up of a body of volunteers, among the bravest Romanians led by Avram Iancu, meant to protect the inner peace and order.
Not in the least, Bishop Andrei thought of the crisis his faithful should go through after the civil war, and began to collect funds to help them. He had launched to his own faithful appeals, even in the autumn of 1848, to help those affected by the horrors of the revolution. On July 18, 1849, he addressed from Olmütz a letter to the Orthodox Romanian-Greek community of Vienna “by which, describing the terrible sufferance and calamities of his Transylvanian faithful in bright colours, he asked for help for the widows and orphans, whose husbands and parents perished in the civil war. He made the same demand to Baron Sina and Zenobie Constantin Pop [both of them bankers] in Vienna.” To cure so many open wounds as the revolution caused, the bishop “appeals to the riches to obtain bigger or smaller help. The communities from Braşov gave 4,000 florins. Archimandrite Neonil of the Monastery of Neamţ sent him in the autumn of 1849 several church books, the religious community from Vienna offers an important number of sacerdotal attires for the Romanian churches in Transylvania; the same will be made by Boyar Gheorghe Sturza from Moldavia, at the beginning of the following year. The most important gift was the emperor’s one – 60,000 florins -designated to be divided equally to the consistories of Sibiu and Blaj in order to restore the Romanian churches burnt or damaged during the revolution.”
The church organization was not left aside either, during his political missions at Court. “Staying at Vienna, I wrote in German the ‘Pro-Memory’ (‘Promemorie’) about the historical autonomy right of the national Church of the Romanians of Greek-Eastern rite, which was printed in Romanian, at Sibiu. I distributed this ‘Pro-Memory’ to the metropolitan of Karlowitz, also, showing him the necessity to re-establish our old Romanian Metropolitanate. […] but Karlowitz appeared uninterested in it.”
In fact, the church organization was for Bishop Andrei a priority that could not be solved as simple as it appeared, without solving the Romanians’ political problems, which in his opinion sounded like this: “According to my humble opinion, although it is easier to get the church meeting than the political one, yet the working and organization of the church national hierarchy is more difficult than that of the political administration.” Actually, in “Pro-Memory”’ he showed that the political and legal causes were the very source of the religious disturbances: “[…] we can wonder how comes that the Romanians’ church autonomy which lasted several hundreds years was lost and all together died? However, if we look the Magyar constitution and that of Transylvania until March 1848: if we examine in detail the Magyar constitution of the past centuries and of the closer time (i.e., 1791 Art. 26 and 27; 1792 Art. 10) and then the laws passed for the benefit of the Eastern Church in the Approbatae and Compilatae of Transylvania (1792, Art. 20), if we compare they all to the procedure used in the Magyar courts, we can cry out of pain, because as far as the Church is concerned, only those laws were approved which favoured the decay of the Eastern religion; and the laws which stipulated a resemblance or similarity of the Eastern religion with the other Christian religions as well as an equality with the Magyars, those remained forgotten and not taken into consideration …”
Simultaneously with the claim concerning the Transylvanian Church’s autonomy from the Serbian hierarchy addressed to the Serbian patriarch, Bishop Andrei wrote to Bishop Gherasim Raţ of Arad and Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina, asking their opinion on this matter, whose solution Andrei Şaguna wished to be unitary for all the Orthodox Romanians of the monarchy. At the beginning of his official approaches concerning the church autonomy, the bishop of Sibiu was sustained both by the bishop of Bukovina and by the one of Arad. Bishop Eugeniu Hacman was in favour of a partial autonomy – the administrative one – as far as the dogmatic matters were concerned the patriarch of Karlowitz having to rule over the Romanian hierarchy; Bishop Gherasim Raţ of Arad was likewise Andrei Şaguna a trenchant promoter of the synodality, against the supremacy of a sole hierarch, even if he calls patriarch: “[…] the unity of our Church does not lie in having a patriarch disposing of authority in dogmatic matters, like in the Latin Church, where the form of church leadership is monarchic, but it lies in cooperation, dialogue and persuading all the faithful; and all this can be obtained in synods – universal or local – to which the patriarchs must be submitted to …”
In July 1849, Bishop Andrei together with the deputies of Banat made and drew a petition to the Ministry of Public Worship with two claims: the filling of the vacant episcopal see of Werschetz in Banat “which used to be called the Eparchy of Caransebeş” with a Romanian bishop, Archimandrite Patriciu Popescu being recommended in this respect; the separation of the Orthodox Romanians from the Serbian hierarchy. 
On August 14, 1848, the bishop wrote a petition to Baron József Eötvös, the Magyar minister of public worship and instruction, by which he asked permission that a synod made up of forty-four protopopes and fifty-six laymen meets at Sibiu, by the end of September. Related to this, on July 27, 1848, Bishop Andrei had held a meeting at Pest with the protopopes Iosif Inghian and Nicolae Popovici and the lawyers Ioan Oniţiu, Petru Dobra and Dimitrie Moldovan, in order to prepare the synod, setting the date September 19/31, at Răşinari, later changed for Sibiu. The rushing delay of the political events prevented him from carrying out his plan. However, “Şaguna’s attempt to meet the synod in 1848 has a great historical importance, because it proves that he was from the very beginning a fervent adherent of the synodality in our Church.”
A last document which the bishop had presented the emperor before his coming home in the autumn of 1849 was the protest against ignoring the Romanians’ contribution to the defeating of the Magyar rebels, in the proclamation of the general commander of the imperial army in Transylvania, Count Eduard Clam-Gallas, Anton von Puchner’s successor. In a proclamation by the return of the imperial army from Romania, Count Clam-Gallas addressed thanks only to the Saxons, assuring them of his protection for their loyalty to the monarchy; he ignored the Romanians altogether. Andrei Şaguna received a copy of the proclamation in Vienna and he went to the emperor and Prime Minister Felix Schwarzenberg and demanded satisfaction in the name of the Romanian persecuted nation. The result was that the general commander withdrew from his position and he was replaced by the Baron Ludwig Wohlgemuth.
In the winter of 1849 Bishop Andrei organized religious ceremonies to thank God for the re-established peace; he also organized a ceremony on the third day of Christmas for those who passed away during the revolution. The new governor himself, together with Eduard Bach, the imperial commissary, and all civil and military high officials took part in the ceremony in the parish church of Sibiu. “For the first time a governor took part in the divine service in a Romanian Orthodox church in Transylvania.” Then, the bishop asked the government’s consent to raise a monument in the Apuseni Mountains, in the memory of those who died for freedom, being convinced that: “the years 1848 and 1849 will be always in Austria’s history one of the most important ages; of course, because of the horrifying events of this age, the mockery actions taken, the rebellions stained with blood and the shameful things hurting human dignity, some of the pages of history will be black; yet it will shine in the annals, because it was at the same time rich in glorious deeds, in great enterprises, in rare examples of faith and sacrifice for His Highness, the Emperor.”
With the coming back from his second political delegation at Court, in the autumn of 1849, began the pacifist mission of this “church prince” never forgotten by his faithful, which lasted till his death, a quarter of a century later.
 In the uprisings of 1848 Italians and Hungarians went so far as to call for the overthrow of the Habsburg dynasty and for the establishment of independent national states; the Polish thought along similar lines.
On March 3, 1848, Lajos Kossuth, leader of the Hungarian opposition, delivered his “Taufrede der österreichischen Revolution” (“Baptismal speech of the Austrian Revolution”) in the Hungarian Imperial Diet in Bratislava, in which he demanded a modern constitution for Hungary. Unrest broke out in Hungary on March 15, and a day later, the Diet’s liberal-dominated Lower House demanded establishment of a national government responsible to an elected parliament, and on March 22, a new national cabinet took power with Count Lajos Batthyány as chairman and Lajos Kossuth as minister of finance. Hungary was now linked with Austria only in personal union. Under duress, the Diet’s Upper House approved a sweeping reform package (the so-called April Laws), signed by the Emperor Ferdinand, which altered almost every aspect of Hungary’s economic, social, and political life. The April Laws – which functioned as Hungary’s new constitution – brought Transylvania under Hungarian rule. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 344 et seqq.
Some days after the Hungarian constitution, on April 25, 1848, Vienna enacted the Pillersdorf Constitution – the first Austrian constitution – but it did not regard Hungary and Italian territories. Actually it was met with heavy criticism by the liberal circles, on Mai 16, 1848, it was declared as provisory by an imperial proclamation and on July 1848 it was definitely revoked. The drafting of a constitution for the non-Hungarian Lands was assigned to the imperial parliament, the Reichstag. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 294; F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 146-150.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 174-175.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 15.
 The son of a village school teacher, Simeon Bărnuţiu (1808-1864) studied theology between 1826 and 1829 at the seminary in Blaj, the principal religious and cultural centre of Romanian Greek Catholics in Transylvania. Choosing not to follow a career in the Church, he remained at Blaj as a teacher of philosophy until 1845, when Bishop Ioan Lemeni, the head of the Greek-Catholic Church, dismissed him after a long and bitter dispute. Bărnuţiu then studied Law in Sibiu until the spring of 1848, when his energies became absorbed in the Romanian struggle for national rights. By education and in spirit Bărnuţiu was a typical representative of the Romanian generation of 1848 in Transylvania. His political thought reflected the romantic élan of the age, and at the same time his philosophical inclinations accorded pride of place to the rationalism and empiricism of the Enlightenment as the guide to social change. At the centre of his preoccupations was the emancipation of the Romanians from subordination to the ruling nations of Transylvania, notably the Magyars, whose aristocracy had dominated political life in the principality for centuries. But his idea of nation differed from that of his predecessors in the eighteenth century. Deeply influenced by the philosophy of Kant, Bărnuţiu saw in philosophy an instrument which, if properly applied, could transform society. Cf. Keith HITCHINS-Apostol STAN, Bărnuţiu, Simeon, in: Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions (online).
 N. POPEA, Memorialul, 48.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 16-17.
 Ibid., 16.
 The partisans of the forced assimilation of the non-Magyars, preached by the Magyar liberal current lead by Lajos Kossuth, imposed the Diet in 1842/1843 a Law of language, which empowered the use of the Hungarian language in the government and in justice at all levels, even in the administration of the Greek Catholic and Orthodox Romanian Churches and in school. Although it was never applied because the emperor did not approve it, the law stirred animosity. Cf. K. HITCHINS, Conştiinţă naţională şi acţiune politică, 105.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Andrei Şaguna şi românii din Transilvania în timpul perioadei absolutiste, 14.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 18.
About the historical privileges of the Saxons see the chapter I.1.1 herein.
The Hungarian nobility and the Szeklers hoped to be able to assure themselves a dominant position in the Diet in the case of unification between Transylvania and Hungary. The Saxons and those Romanians who where not represented in Diet were opposed to this. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 370.
 Avram Iancu (1824-1872) was a lawyer and military hero of the Romanians of Transylvania in 1848-1849. Born into a peasant family of modest means in the Apuseni Mountains of western Transylvania, he received an education rare for a Romanian of this time, attending the Piarist lyceum in Cluj. He studied the humanities and then, between 1844 and 1847, Law. After graduation he took a post as cancelist (law clerk) at the High Court of Transylvania in Tirgu-Mures, a mainly Hungarian city. It was here among some thirty fellow Romanian lawyers (and their 170 Hungarian colleagues) that the first news of the events of March 1848 in Vienna and Pest reached him. Like liberals elsewhere in Europe, he stood for individual freedoms, but the long struggle to protect the Romanian nation from subjugation by others had led him to put the interests of the entire ethnic community ahead of individual rights. Such a commitment explains the apparent paradox of his ultimate rejection of Hungarian liberalism in 1848. Yet, his brand of nationalism was by no means anti-liberal, and he displayed exemplary toleration toward the other peoples of Transylvania. Cf. Keith HITCHINS, Iancu, Avram, in: Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions (online).
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 13: “I left for Karlowitz for the consecration ceremony on April 6, to spend the Holy Week and Easter there.”
 “The country government seeing that all its efforts meant to stop the national meeting to take place were in vain, that all threats or persecutions of all kind are useless, not having any choice, agreed, approving the meeting …” N. POPEA, Memorialul, 51-52.
 See “Cerculariulu consistoriului din Sabiniu chiamatoriu la adunarea natiunale din 15./3. maiu” (“The circular letter of the consistory of Sibiu, inviting to the national meeting of May 15/3”) and “Cerculariulu episcopiei din Blasiu totu in acestu objeptu” (“The circular letter of the Diocese of Blaj concerning the same matter”), in: A. PAPIU ILARIANU, Istori`a, 277-279.
 A. PAPIU ILARIANU, Istori`a, 146.
 Ibid., 142-147.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 18.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 13.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 204. See also G. NEAMŢU, Episcopul Andrei Şaguna, „regele românilor” la 1848, 31-32.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 204.
 Cf. A. PAPIU ILARIANU, Istori`a, 189.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 17.
 A. PAPIU ILARIANU, Istori`a, 189.
 M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 18.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Andreiu Şaguna, 74.
 A. PLĂMĂDEALĂ, Andrei Şaguna în 1848, 215.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 46.
 See Simeon Bărnuţiu’s speech held in the cathedral of Blaj, on May 2/14, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 83-130.
 Ibid., 101.
 Ibid., 125-127.
 Ibid., 121.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 30.
 “Domnului Nicolae Abraham Penciu, Pesta, în 11 Iulie 1848” (“To Mr Nicolae Abraham Penciu, Pest, July 11, 1848”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 156-157 here 156.
 P. TEODOR, Preface at K. HITCHINS, Ortodoxie şi naţionalitate, 14-15.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 15.
 See this programme at K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 48-50.
 R. CÂNDEA, Andreiu Şaguna, 180.
 This is a further argument in order to counteract the theory which stated that Andrei Şaguna was a revolutionary.
 After 1700, there were common actions taken by the Orthodox and Greek Catholic bishops, but never did they have the amplitude and the popular support of the one from Blaj.
 About this so-called “big synod” see the chapter VII.1 herein. It is an old institution of the Transylvanian Orthodox Church, a mixed ecclesiastical body, composed of laymen and clergymen.
 “Protocolul adunării generale a naţiunii române din Transilvania, care s’a ţinut la Blaj în anul Domnului 1848, Maiu 15/3” (“The Protocol of the general meeting of the Romanian nation in Transylvania which was held at Blaj in the year of the Lord 1848, May 15/3”), point two of the decision of the second meeting of May 4/16, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 59. Cf. also K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 49.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 75; I. MATEIU, Şaguna şi restaurarea Mitropoliei, 6.
 The national programme from Blaj included, as principal demands: dissolving of the serfdom without paying compensations, commercial and industrial freedom, freedom of speech and of the individual, abolishing censorship and privileges, setting up Romanian national guards checking the boundaries of the estates and forests, endowment of the Romanian clergy from the State Treasury, Romanian schools of all levels, a new constitution, union with Hungary should not be discussed in the Diet until the Romanian nation has not been constituted with a deliberative and decisive vote in the legislative chamber. Cf. N. POPEA, Memorialul, 56-64; K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 49-50.
 D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 182.
The newly declared (in March 1848) Ban of Croatia – Josip Jelačić (1801-1859) – took immediate steps to terminate Hungarian control over Croatia, officially severed all relations between Croatia and Budapest, declaring Croatia’s “independence and equality to Hungary” on April 19.
The delegates to the Serbian national assembly in Karlowitz, of May 1848, elected the conservative church leader Josip Rajačić patriarch, who wished to obtain from the Habsburg Court an autonomous province of Serbians of Hungary led by the patriarch. Cf. Brian SMITH, Jellacic, Ban Josif; Rajacic, Josif, in: Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions (online); R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 392 et seq., 426.
 See “Protocolul adunării generale a naţiunii române din Transilvania, care s’a ţinut la Blaj în anul Domnului 1848, Maiu 15/3” (“The Protocol of the general meeting of the Romanian nation in Transylvania which was held at Blaj in the year of the Lord 1848, May 15/3”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 56-64.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 51.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 19.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 207.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 20.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 15.
 Andrei Şaguna’s circular letter dated Blaj, May 4/16, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 79.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 16.
 Ioan Lemeni’s circular letter dated Cluj, June 2/14, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 77-79 here 78.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 15.
 Commissars Szabó and Bánffy’s report to the government, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 69-70 here 70. Cf. also C. von WURZBACH, Biographisches Lexikon, 87: “[…] da war es Bischof Schaguna, welcher in der Versammlung sich Gehör und unbedingtes Vertrauen zu verschaffen wußte, so daß durchwegs den Kossuth-ischen Agitationen entgegengesetzte Beschlüsse gefasst wurden.”
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 52.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 183.
 On May 3/15, 1848, new riots took place in Vienna. Under such circumstances, Emperor Ferdinand and the imperial family fled to Innsbruck on May 5/17.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 16.
 Ibid., 17.
 Ibid., 17.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 183.
 Emperor Ferdinand’s resolution, dated June 11, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 136: “Indem das […] Bittgesuch durch die seither auf dem siebenbürgischen Landtage einstimmig beschlossene, und von Mir durch den 7. Artikel des letzten ungarischen Reichstages vorläufig schon sanctionirte Union Siebenbürgens mit Ungarn, erledigt wurde, freut es Mich die hier anwesenden Abgeordneten versichern zu können, dass durch den betreffenden Gesetzartikel, welcher ohne Rücksicht auf Nationalität, Sprache und Religion allen Einwohnern Siebenbürgens dieselben Freiheiten und Berechtigungen ertheilt, ihren Wünschen grösstentheils entsprochen wurde; ihre künftige Wohlfahrt daher nur von dem Vollzuge dieses Gesetzes abhängt …”
 The so-called April Laws proclaimed some rights (guilds lost their privileges; the nobles became subject to taxation; entail, tithes, and the corvee were abolished; some peasants became freehold proprietors of the land they worked; freedom of the press and assembly were created; the equal rights of all Christian denominations were declared, ending the Catholics’ status as a state Church) but the non-Magyar ethnic groups in Hungary feared the nationalism of the new Hungarian government and this is why Transylvanian Germans and Romanians opposed the incorporation of Transylvania into Hungary. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 344. See also Istvan DEAK, The Lawful Revolution. Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians 1848-1849, New York 1979.
 A major flaw of the Hungarian constitution of 1848 (April Laws) was that it did not mention the non-Magyar nationalities, although they made up about half of Hungary’s population. The non-Magyars fealt threatened, for instance the Vojvodina’s Serbians and Transylvania’s Germans and Romanians: the emperor signed the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, the unification of Croatia with Hungary; then it was an attempt to annex the frontier guard territories to Hungary, because them were provided representatives in the Parliament of Pest. Until September 1848, the imperial troops in Hungary were placed under the obedience and competence of the Magyar Ministry of the War and so they fought against the Slavs who rebelled against Pest. Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 176; R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 345 et seq.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 22.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 18.
 The Petition of the Romanian delegation, dated Vienna, June 18, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 136-138 here 138: “Wir erklären daher Euer Majestät, dass wir bei den in unserer Petition ausgesprochenen Wünschen bleiben und bitten Eure Majestät um gnädige Genehmigung derselben. Was die ohne uns auf dem Klausenburger Landtage ausgesprochene Union anbelangt, protestieren wir gegen dieselbe, wie wir in unserer Petition gegen die Verhandlung einer so wichtigen, uns so sehr angehenden Frage im Voraus protestiert haben.”
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 18.
 See the emperor’s answer dated June 23, 1848, to the Romanian petition from June 18, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 138-139.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 55.
 Cf. Andrei Şaguna’s circular letter dated Pest, July 18, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 147-150.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 176.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 55.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 21.
 Ibid., 23.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 22-23.
 N. POPEA, Memorialul, 151.
 Romanian deputy’s letter to his community dated Vienna, June 2, 1848, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 153.
 “Domnului Nicolae Abraham Penciu, Pesta, în 11 Iulie 1848” (“To Mr Nicolae Abraham Penciu, Pest, July 11, 1848”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 156-157.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 22.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 58-59.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 183.
 Andrei Şaguna’s pastoral letter dated Pest, July 18, 1848, in: Gh. TULBURE, Mitropolitul Şaguna, 142-146 here 145-146.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 23.
 Cf. P. DAN, Andrei Şaguna, 42.
 As a matter of fact, the problem was neither of the Orthodox bishop, nor of the Transylvanian intellectuals, but of the Magyar revolution itself “which in many ways stood for the cause of liberalism”, but “was compromised by the narrow nationalism of its charismatic, brilliant leader Kossuth.” R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 345.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 184; R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 345 et seq.
 Actually, the Viennese government enlisted the non-Magyar nationalities in the attempt to overthrow the Hungarian government. The Croatian invasion of Hungary, from 11 September 1848, leaded by Ban Josip Jelačić, was used by Vienna as a means of inducing the more moderate elements in Pest to compromise. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 345.
 Cf. T. BODOGAE, Cîteva documente în legătură cu frămîntările sociale la Romînii ardeleni în vara anului 1848, 282-292.
 Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 20.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 24.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 23. Cf. also C. von WURZBACH, Biographisches Lexikon, 87: “Auf der Rückreise hatte er von Seite der fanatischen Magyaren alle nur erdenklichen Unbilden zu erdulden, er wurde mit Roth beworfen, öffentlich beschimpft und sogar an seinem Leben bedroht.”
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 26.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 23.
 Cf. M. SOFRONIE, Participarea, 24.
 N. POPEA, Memorialul, 159.
 See “An Seine Excellenz, den Comandierenden Generalen Baron Anton Puchner, Hermannstadt, am 27. October 1848”, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 165: “[…] nehme ich die Freiheit Euerer Excellenz mit der gehorsamsten Bitte zu überschicken, die gequälten Geistlichen sowohl, als auch das verfolgte Volk, unter den hohen Schutz nehmen, und für die Sicherheit ihres Lebens und Eigenthums das Nöthige schleunigst verfügen zu wollen.”
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 23.
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 21.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 24.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 66.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 24.
 Cf. “Protocolul adunării naţionale-române, ţinută în Sibiiu la 16/28 Decemvrie 1848” (“The Protocol of the Romanian national meeting gathered at Sibiu, on December 16/28, 1848”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 229-233. See also A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 24.
 See “Cuvântul lui Şaguna de deschidere a adunării” (“Şaguna’s opening speech of the meeting”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 219-227.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 222.
 “Cuvântul lui Şaguna de deschidere a adunării” (“Şaguna’s opening speech of the meeting”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 219-227 here 221-222.
 Ibid., 226.
 See “Protocolul adunării naţionale-române, ţinută în Sibiiu la 16/28 Decemvrie 1848” (“The Protocol of the Romanian national meeting gathered at Sibiu, on December 16/28, 1848”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 229-233. The Romanian programme drafted after discussions contained the following important demands: armed Romanian guard, opening of Romanian schools, non-recognition of the unification of Transylvania with Hungary, Transylvania’s autonomy, recognition of the Permanent Committee as Romanian political body, seats in the future Diet for all the nationalities, a national leader of the Romanians, confirmed by the monarch.
 In December 1848, Emperor Ferdinand abdicated in favour of Francis Joseph, who claimed more freedom of action because, unlike Ferdinand, he had given no pledge to respect the April Laws. The Magyars, however, refused to recognize him as their king because he was never crowned.
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 68.
 See “Împuternicirea episcopului Şaguna şi a profesorului Gottfried Müller, pentru de a cere ajutorul Ruşilor din România” (“Bishop Şaguna and Professor Gottfried Müller’s authorization to ask the Russians for help”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 233-234.
 Cf. D. BĂLAŞA, Un document în legătură cu trecerea lui Andrei Şaguna prin Schela Cîineni, 1848.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Arhiepiscopul, Discurs, 13.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 228: “He never petitioned to his faithful again although there were enough similar difficult circumstances which caused great espenses.”
 Ibid., 227.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to the Orthodox from Braşov, of January 2, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 228.
 See “O copie a unei copii a raportului deputaţilor din Bucuresci cătră comitenţi, despre aşternerea petiţiunii la Lüders.” (“A copy of a copy of the deputies’ report from Bucharest, to the members of the Committee, about the petition toward Lüders”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 238-239.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Consistoriul diecezan din Sibiu” (“Andrei Şaguna to the eparchial consistory of Sibiu”), in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 166.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 224.
 “Cătră clerul şi poporul ortodox român din Ardeal” (“To the Romanian Orthodox clergy and people of Transylvania”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 241-242 here 242.
 Hurmuzachi brothers, Alexandru (1823-1871), Constantin (1811-1869), Eudoxiu (1812-1878), and Gheorghe (1817-1882) were members of a leading family of Romanian nobles in Austrian Bukovina, activists in the Romanian national movement in Bukovina and elsewhere. All of them studied and graduated Law in Vienna. Their estate at Cernauca became a center and haven for Romanian revolutionaries in exile, transit, and conspiracy during 1848-1849. The material and financial support provided by the Hurmuzachi family was indispensable for the Romanian exiles and their future activities. At the same time, the exiles had a powerful effect on the development of the Romanian national movement in Bukovina through their prolongued contact with Cernauca. Cf. Paul E. MICHELSON, Hurmuzachi Brothers, in: Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions (online); Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 180-187.
 Cf. “Andrei Şaguna către Consistoriul diecezan din Sibiu” (“Andrei Şaguna to the eparchial consistory of Sibiu”), in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 167-168.
 Andrei Şaguna’s official speech in front of the emperor, on February 6, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 243-246 here 245.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 84.
 See the national petition to the Emperor Francis Joseph I, of February 25, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 247-250 here 248-249: “1.Vereinigung aller Rumänen der österreichischen Staaten zu einer einzigen selbstständigen Nation unter dem Szepter Österreichs als integrierender Theil des Gesamtstaates. 2. Selbstständige Nationaladministration in politischer und kirchlicher Hinsicht. 3. Baldige Eröffnung eines allgemeinen Kongresses der ganzen Nation zur Selbstkonstituierung, und zwar: a) zur Erwählung eines von Eurer Majestät zu bestätigenden Nationaloberhauptes, dessen Titel ebenfalls Euere Majestät zu bestimmten geruhen werden; b) eines nationalen Administrationsrathes unter dem Titel rumänischer Senat; c) eines selbstständigen von Euerer Majestät zu bestätigenden Kirchenoberhauptes, dem die übrigen Nationalbischöfe untergeordnet werden sollen …” Cf. also “Petiţiunea generală a Naţiunei române. Olmütz 13/25 Febr. 1849” (“The general petition of the Romanian Nation. Olmütz, February, 13/25, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 10-13.
 Under the new circumstances created by the conflicts between Vienna and Pest, the national programmes aimed at the national political federalization of the monarchy. By the end of 1848 and the beginning of 1849 “one can notice at all the non-Magyar national programmes the tendency of transformation and ethnic federalization of the entire monarchy, without any concession made to the historic right of the Crown of St. Stephan or to the integrity of the Hungarian state as its leaders wanted.” D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 187.
 Cf. D. SUCIU, Lupta naţionalităţilor din Imperiul Habsburgic, 186.
 The emperor’s answer to the national petition, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 250-251: “Die Petition der getreuen romänischen Nation werde Ich in genaue Erwägung ziehen lassen und in der kürzesten Zeit zu ihrer Befriedigung erledigen.”
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to the eparchial consistory of Sibiu, undated, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 251.
 The Reichstag – assigned for to draft a constitution for the non-Hungarian Lands of the Austrian Monarchy, after the Pillersdorf Constitution of 25 April 1848 was revoked – met in Vienna from July to October 1848 and reconvened in the Moravian Kroměříž (Kremsier) in November. It was drafted a constitution “which represented a genuine compromise with the national group outside of Hungary.” R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 294.
But the Reichstag was dissolved on March 7, 1849, by Prince Felix Schwarzenberg, the prime minister, and the new Emperor Francis Joseph and the Viennese government decreed the so-called Stadion Constitution, a new, centralist constitution, based on the monarchic principle, named after its author, the minister of the interior, Count Franz Stadion. Unlike the Kroměříž draft, it applied to the entire monarchy including Hungary. The constitution dated March 4, 1849 marks the beginning proper of constitutionalization at the level of the Austrian Empire because up to 1848 there was no constitution for the entire state. It is also called “the decreed Constitution”. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 294. See also Andreas GOTTSMANN, Der Reichstag von Kremsier und die Regierung Schwarzenberg. Die Verfassungsdiskussion des Jahres 1848 im Spannungsfeld zwischen Reaktion und nationaler Frage, Wien u.a. 1995; F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 143-168.
See also the Austrian Constitution of 4 March 1849 (online).
 I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 24.
 R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 346.
 Austrian Constitution of 4 March 1849: Art. LXXIV, al.1: “The internal administration and constitution of the Principality of Transylvania will be fixed by a special statute; on the principle, however, of its entire independence of Hungary, and of equal justice being done to all races inhabiting the country and in harmony with this Constitution.”
 Ibid., Art. LXXII.
 Ibid., Art. LXXIV, paragraph 2: “The privileges of the Saxon nation are assured to them and maintained by this Constitution.”
About the historical privileges of the Saxons see the chapter I.1.1 herein.
 In fact, both recognizing Croatia and Vojvodina as separate entities from Hungary and of Transylvania, too, was a punishment given to the Magyars, not a special interest in the aspiration of these nations. Even this “decreed Constitution” has never been turned into practice, being denounced by the emperor after the following two years. Instead, a new era of absolutism began: the Patent of 31 December 1851 formally invalided the Stadion Constitution in favour of some principles, usually mentioned as “Kübeck proposals”, which entitled the emperor the supreme legislative and executive authority and established an Imperial Council (Reichsrat) made up of older statesmen. Cf. K. HITCHINS, Andrei Şaguna şi românii din Transilvania în timpul decadei absolutiste, 16, 20; F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 169-183.
 See the memorandum to the ministry, dated Olmütz, March 5, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 258-264. Cf. also “Memorand cătră ministeriu. Olmütz, 5 Martie 1849” (“Memorandum to the ministry. Olmütz, March 5, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 13-18.
 The memorandum to the ministry, dated Olmütz, March 5, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 258-264 here 263: “Dies Alles fordert die Nation nur als integrierender Theil der Gesamtmonarchie, weswegen sie auch bei dem österreichischen Reichstage nach der Seelenzahl vertreten zu sein wünscht. Es liegt gewiss nur im Interesse des Gesamtstaates, diesem Wunsche zu willfahren.”
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 73.
 See the petition to the emperor, of March 12, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 264-266. Cf. also “Plânsórea cătră Împăratul după eşirea constituţiunei. Olmütz 12 Martie 1849” (“The complaint to the emperor after the Constitution was issued. Olmütz, March 12, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 18-20.
 See the petition to the ministry, of March 23, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 267-268. Cf. also “Desluşire cătră ministeriu. Viena 23 Martiu 1849” (“Explanation to the ministry. Vienna, March 23, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 20-21.
 Austrian Constitution of March 4, 1849, Art. V: “Equal justice will be given to all races, and each race has the inviolable right of preserving and maintaining its own nationality and language.”
 The petition to the emperor, of March 12, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 264-266 here 266: “Der Boden, den die Rumänen mit den Sachsen zusammen, aber mit überwiegender Mehrheit auf Seite der Ersteren bewohnen, hiess immer Königsboden. […] Die Erklärung des Königsbodens zu einem Sachsenlande, zum Nachtheile der älteren und zahlreicheren rumänischen Bevölkerung wird das Misstrauen, das auch in der jüngsten Zeit Unglück genug über Siebenbürgen gebracht hat, zwischen diesen zwei Nationen steigern und Reibungen und Verwirrungen hervorrufen. […] Eure Majestät! Wir glauben uns verpflichtet zu versichern, dass wir in dieser Eingabe von keiner gehässigen Leidenschaft gegen die Sachsen, sondern einzig und allein von der Gerechtigkeit und Wahrheitsliebe geleitet sind. Wir wünschen aufrichtig, dass die Sachsen für sich, aber auf ihren eigenen Kosten bestehen: wir wünschen aber zugleich, dass auch die Rumänen für sich und als solche nicht unter sächsischer, sondern unter ihrer eigenen Jurisdiction bestehen sollen.”
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 74.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 90.
 See “Declaraţia naţiei maghiare de neatîrnare” (“The Magyar nation’s declaration of independence”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 288-303.
 Ibid., 302.
 See the Romanian, Croatian and Slovakian deputies’ memorandum to the ministry, dated Vienna, April 26, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 315-324.
 Lajos Kossuth’s letter to Ioan Dragoş, dated Debrecen, April 26, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 307-311.
 N. POPEA, Memorialul, 324.
 See the petition to the ministry, undated, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 325-327.
 On his person and activity see Adolf zu SCHWARZENBERG, Prince Felix zu Schwarzenberg, Prime Minister of Austria 1848-1852, New York 1946; Stefan LIPPERT, Felix Fürst zu Schwarzenberg, Eine politische Biographie, Stuttgart 1998.
 See Andrei Şaguna’s petition to the ministry, concerning George Bariţiu’s liberation, dated Vienna, July 4, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 348-349.
 Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 346; History of Romania. Compendium, 495.
 See “Răspunsul ministrului Bach, în numele ministerului întreg, cătră episcopul Şaguna asupra petiţiunii generale a deputaţiunii române”, datat Viena, 18 iulie 1849 (“Minister Bach’s answer in the name of the entire ministry to Bishop Şaguna, concerning the general petition of the Romanian delegation”, dated Vienna, July 18, 1849), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 341-343. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 28-30.
 See the petition of the Romanian delegation to the emperor, dated Vienna, July 18, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 334-341.
 The emperor’s answer to the petition of July 18, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 341: “Ich werde also gleich Meinem Ministerium den Auftrag ertheilen, ihre Petition zu erledigen, und Sie können versichert sein, dass die billigen und gerechten Wünsche der Romanen erfüllt werden.”
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 230.
 “Şaguna către episcopul Bucovinei Hacman. Viena, în 26 Martie 1849” (“Şaguna to Bishop Hacman of Bukovina, Vienna, on March 26, 1849”), in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 273. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 291-292.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 32.
 Actele Soboarelor…1850 şi 1860, 24 et seqq.
Sava Branković was a metropolitan of Transylvania, with small interruptions, between 1656 and 1680. In February 1669, Prince Michael Apaffi I issued a decree by which the metropolitan was imposed a series of restrictions, among which the most difficult was to submit to the Magyar Calvin superintendent of Alba-Iulia in all church problems, a measure renewed after five years. The discovery of a plot directed against Apaffi, to which the metropolitan’s brother – George Branković, a diplomat in the service of Prince Michael Apaffi – consented, determined the setting of “a court of justice” at Alba-Iulia, out of the prince’s disposition, on June 2, 1680, made up of 101 persons (Magyar Calvinist leaders, Romanian pro-Calvinists protopopes, lay people, etc.) with an aim to judge the Metropolitan Sava. He was judged and sentenced the same day, according to the well-known collection of Transylvanian medieval laws – Approbatae Constitutiones – and according to the canons of the Magyar Calvinist Church, followed by his being defrocked. Petru Maior, in his book “The history of the Romanians’ Church”, tells this: “In Prince Apaffi’s castle from Blaj – by whose order the praised Sava was beaten to death, then sent back to prison and pulled out every Friday – was beaten by sticks until he died.” Cf. Mircea PĂCURARIU, Sfinţi daco-români şi români, Iaşi 1994, 102-106.
 Ioan Dobran’s letter to Andrei Şaguna, dated Vienna, October 30, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 379-380 here 379: “Schmerling sagte dieser Tage, wie wir das Gesuch einreichten, dass die Serbischen Bischöfe, falls sie berathen – nichts über Romanen entscheiden sollen dürfen – dass uns eigener Erzbischof wird ertheilt werden. Wenn Illustrissime Domine Vollmachten haben, kommen’s jetzt herauf, damit wir unitis viribus die Resolution herausbekommen.”
 Andrei Şaguna’s answer to Ioan Dobran, dated Sibiu, November 10, 1849 in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 380-381 here 381: “In Betreff meiner Hinaufreise muss ich noch bemerken, das wenn auch die ganze Welt sich Vorspiegelungen macht, und die Hoffnung hegt, dass wir bezüglich unserer nationalen Angelegenheiten eine Resolution bekommen können, ich dennoch bei meiner Meinung verbleibe, und sage: dass die Zeit der zu ertheilenden Resolutionen vorüber ist.”
 Cf. Anticritic’a, 22.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 54.
 See the chapter II.2.2 herein.
 I. LUPAŞ, Anastasia Şaguna, 31. Cf. also the chapter II.3 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to the eparchial consistory of Sibiu, undated, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 251.
 “Sr. Excellenz dem k.k. General der Cavallerie Commandirenden in Siebenbürgen Herrn B. Puchner, Olmütz, 20. März 1849”, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 270-273: “Die sächsischen Organe stimmen von Tag zu Tag einen immer feindseligeren Ton gegen die Romänen, und emsig bemühen sie sich alle Repressalien, die der Landsturm hier und da, wie ich glaube nothgedrungen, geübt hat, aus allen Winkeln hervorzuziehen und zu commentieren, um den Beweis auszuführen, dass es zweifelhaft sei, ob von den Romänen oder von den Rebellen mehr Gräuelthaten vollbracht wurden? Niemand kann diese Gräuelscenen tiefer beklagen als ich; wo aber gegen 250 romänische Ortschaften in Asche liegen und mehrere zehntausende Romänen hingeschlachtet wurden, – wo unzählige Greise, Witwen und unschuldige Kinder in den Wäldern und Gebirgen, im strengsten Winter nackt und vom Hunger geplagt herum irren, und die ganze Nation vernichtet erscheint, da kann nur die unmenschliche Böswilligkeit einzelne Katastrophen […] wieder und wieder in Erinnerung bringen, um die romänische Nation zu brandmarken.
Was hat die romänische Nation zu vertheidigen gehabt, als sie sich erhoben hatte? (Nichts, denn sie hatte bisher nichts von allem dem, was einer Nation als solcher zukommt); sie erhob sich in ihrer kindlichen Treue für die Beschützung der Dinastie und für die Aufrechthaltung der Gesamtmonarchie und zuletzt für die constitutionelle Freiheit und Gleichheit. Womit hat sie diese so feindliche Behandlung von Seite der sächsischen Nation, – mit welcher sie ja gemeine Sache macht, – verdient? Wann hat die romänische Nation den Sachsen, von denen sie immer stiefmütterlich behandelt wurde, Böses mit Bösem vergolten? Ist diese Nation nicht dieselbe die in den Kongressen zu Blasendorf durch ihr seltenes, weises, ruhiges aber zugleich männliches Benehmen die Augen der ganzen Monarchie auf sich gezogen? Es ist höchst auffallend, dass die Sachsen mehr mit den Rebellen als mit den Romänen, die doch mehr die Sachsen als sich selbst beschützt haben, sympatisiren!
[…] ich appelliere an die edlen Gefühle Euerer Excellenz und bitte gehorsamst Ihren mächtigen Schutz der vielgeprüften romänischen Nation nicht zu entziehen.
Als einer, der auch ich die Nation zum Kampfe ermunterte, fühle ich mich in meinem Gewissen verantwortlich vor Gott und vor der Nation, für das in Strömen vergossene unschuldige Blut und für die ungeheuren Schaden meiner vielgeliebten Kinder in Christo. Dieses Bewusstsein drängt mich, Euere Excellenz, kraft meines geistlichen Hirten-Amtes zu beschwören, den Einflüsterungen der Feinden meiner Nation bei den Untergeordneten Euerer Excellenz Halt zu gebieten und sie unschädlich zu machen, zugleich der sächsischen Presse die gebührenden Gränzen anzuweisen, und überhaupt der romänischen Nation das zu sein, was Euere Excellenz im Monate Mai versprochen, ein Schutz-Engel. Der Ruhm, einer alten, getreuen und braven, aber vielseitig angefeindeten Nation, zu ihren Rechten geholfen zu haben, wird nicht der geringste nebst dem sein, was die Geschichte den Heldenthaten Euerer Excellenz zollen wird.”
 See “Recomandarea lui Andreiu Mocionyi de Foen de comisar imperial” (“The recommendation of Andrei Mocionyi of Foen as imperial commissary”), undated, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 349-352; “Recomandarea lui Petru Mocsonyi de comisar imperial” (“The recommendation of Petru Mocsonyi as imperial commissary”), Vienna, August 18, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 353-355.
 “Petiţiunea lui Şaguna pentru un corp de voluntari români” (“Şaguna’s petition for a body of Romanian volunteers”), dated Vienna, July 3, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 352-353: “Durch das Vorrücken der kaiserlichen Armee in Siebenbürgen und durch die Besiegung und Sprengung der Insurgenten dürften sich, eben so wie es in Ober-Ungarn der Fall ist, im Rücken der vorwärts schreitenden Sieger Räuberbanden und verzweifelnde Honvedgruppen bilden, welche die vom kaiserlichen Militär entlösten Gegenden beunruhigen, und der gutgesinnten Unterthanen Leben und Vermögen gefährden könnten.”
 See Andrei Şaguna’s circular letter dated Sibiu, November 11/23, 1848, in: Gh. TULBURE, Mitropolitul Şaguna, 398-400.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 253-254.
 I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 109.
 At length on “Pro-Memory” see the chapter V.1.1 herein.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 28.
 “Adresa episcopului Andreiu Şaguna cătră episcopul Bucovinei, Eugenie Hacman, prin care cere părerea acestuia şi a clerului din Bucovina asupra unor puncte privitóre la independenţa ierarchică a Românilor” (“Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Bishop Eugenie Hacman of Bukovina, by which he and the clergy of Bukovina were asked for their opinion on some points concerning the church independence of the Romanians”), dated Olmütz, April 18, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 40-41 here 40.
 A. ŞAGUNA, Promemorie, 12-13.
 See “Adresa primă a episcopului Andreiu Şaguna cătră patriarchul sârbesc Iosif Raiacics în causa independenţei ierarchice a românilor de sârbi” (“Andreiu Şaguna’s first letter addressed to the Serbian Patriarch Josip Rajačić concerning the independence of the Romanian hierarchy from the Serbian one”), Vienna, March 16/28, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 38-39. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/2, 86-87.
 See “Andrei Şaguna către Gherasim Raţ” (“Andrei Şaguna to Gherasim Raţ”), dated Sibiu 2/15 October 1849, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 114.
 See “Adresa episcopului Andreiu Şaguna cătră episcopul Bucovinei, Eugenie Hacman, prin care cere părerea acestuia şi a clerului din Bucovina asupra unor puncte privitóre la independenţa ierarchică a Românilor” (“Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Bishop Eugenie Hacman of Bukovina, by which he and the clergy of Bukovina were asked for their opinion on some points concerning the church independence of the Romanians”), dated Olmütz, April 18, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 40-41.
 See “Cuprinsul principal al răspunsului, ce Preasfinţia Sa Eugenie Hacman, Episcopul Bucovinei l’a îndreptat cătră Patriarchul sârbilor” (“The main contents of the answer that His Excellency Eugenie Hacman, the bishop of Bukovina sent to the Serbian patriarch”), dated Czernowitz, July 6, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 41-43. Cf. also I. SBIERA, Mişcarea bisericească a Romînilor din Bucovina, 101.
 See “Răspunsul episcopului dela Arad, Gerasim Raţiu cătră patriarchul sârbesc, în causa independenţei ierarchice a românilor” (“The answer addressed by Bishop Gerasim Raţiu of Arad to the Serbian patriarch, concerning the church independence of the Romanians”), dated Cubin, November 5, 1849, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 43-45.
 Ibid., 45.
 “Suplica pentru instituirea unui episcop român în scaunul vacant din Versetz. Viena, 20 Iuliu 1849” (“Complaint concerning the appointment of a Romanian bishop for the vacant episcopal see of Werschetz. Vienna, July 20, 1849”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 24-25 here 24. Cf. also the petition to the ministry, for the filling of the vacant Episcopal see of Werschetz, dated Vienna, July 20, 1849, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 355-357.
 Baron József Eötvös (1813-1871) was a Hungarian writer and statesman, the son of Baron Ignacz Eötvös. After an excellent education (he was Andrei Şaguna’s colleague in Pest), entered the civil service as a vice-notary, and was early introduced to political life by his father. He also spent many years in Western Europe, assimilating the new ideas both literary and political, and making the acquaintance of the leaders of the Romantic school. Eötvös was generally regarded as one of the leading writers and politicians of Hungary, a vigorous reformer and a Christian Liberal. He held the portfolio of public worship and instruction in the first responsible Hungarian ministry headed by Lajos Batthyány (1848), and again in the ministry of Gyula Andrássy (1867-1871) but his influence in the ministries extended far beyond his own department. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 232, 234, 352 et seq.
 Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Şaguna şi Eötvös, 11-12.
 Ibid., 11.
 Cf. N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 254-255; A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 31.
At the end of the revolution of 1848/1849, Emperor Francis Joseph established in Transylvania a military and civil government, under a general, until 1860/1861, when the Transylvanian civil government was restored. Baron Ludwig Wohlgemuth was the first military and civil governor of Transylvania, between 11 July 1849 and 18 April 1851. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 295 et seqq., 312.
 Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 39-40.
 N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 44.
 “Sr. Excellenz dem Herrn Civil- und Militär-Guverneur in Siebenbürgen Ludwig Freiherr von Wohlgemuth. Hermannstadt, den 24. December 1849”, in: N. POPEA, Memorialul, 381-382: “Die Jahre 1848 und 1849 werden in der Geschichte Österreichs stets eine der merkwürdigsten Epochen bilden, welche zwar ob der vielen schaudervollen Ereignissen, schmachvollen Unternehmungen blutbefleckten Empörungen, und der im Verlaufe derselben begangenen, die menschliche Würde entehrenden Handlungen, so manches schwarze Blatt in der Geschichte füllen, dennoch aber in den Jahrbüchern glänzen wird, da sie zugleich an glorreichen Thaten, ruhmvollen Unternehmungen, und seltenen Beispielen von Treue und Aufopferung für den angestammten Monarchen reich war.”
 C. von WURZBACH, Biographisches Lexikon, 88: “Und nun beginnt die Friedensmission dieses den Seinigen unvergeßlichen Kirchenfürsten, welche bis zu seinem Ableben durch ein volles Vierteljahrhundert währte.”
December 20, 2016 Drept si Religie