Andrei Şaguna and “The Organic Statute” – III.3 The period 1860-1864

III. ANDREI ŞAGUNA – BISHOP OF TRANSYLVANIA

III.3 The period 1860-1864

In 1859 the Sardinian War started. Faithful to his principle of loyalty toward the monarchy Bishop Andrei Şaguna addressed a letter to the emperor[1] expressing the adhesion “of the entire clergy of the Greek Eastern Eparchy of Transylvania”. It was a new reason for speculations and criticism on the part of the intellectuals.[2]

After on November 10, 1859, the peace of Zürich was concluded[3] and the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia was lost, in the early 1860s the Neoabsolutist era came to an end, followed by the attempt to establish the monarchy on constitutional bases, the parliamentarianism being reintroduced. The policy of the Austrian government toward the Romanians changed radically. From 1860 to 1864, during the constitutional experimentation in Transylvania, Andrei Şaguna’s attachment to the monarchy seemed justified. His critics became silent when the Romanians obtained the recognition of their equality with the Magyars and the Saxons in the political life.[4]

III.3.1 Inter-confessional harmony. Andrei Şaguna – deputy of the Enlarged Imperial Senate  

The major problem of the Romanians of Transylvania at the end of the Neoabsolutist era had remained the separation according to confessional criteria. The Orthodox bishop was the one who restored the peace, at a dinner party offered by him at his residence, at the end of 1859, in honour of Vasile Pop, a Romanian promoted at the Austrian Ministry of Justice. Bishop Andrei invited “all the Romanian intelligentsia of both confessions of Sibiu”[5].

It was quickly noticed a sensible improvement of the relationships between the Orthodox and Greek Catholics, contrasting even surprisingly with those of the period 1850-1860. That is another proof that the political factor had always an overwhelming word to say in the religious matters of Transylvania, even within Church, especially when weak or not experienced people fell in the trap of political manipulations.

The atmosphere of confessional reconciliation was cultivated especially in 1860-1862, at the beginning of the “liberal” period, when the Romanian Diet of Transylvania was at work, in Sibiu. On May 20, 1861, Bishop Andrei Şaguna sent a letter to “His Excellency, Greek Catholic Archbishop and Metropolitan Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu, of Blaj”[6], by which he praised the confessional harmony newly restored and asked: “I dare come near to your Excellency, at this moment, as a result of the talk we have had, with a proposal as national, brotherly and sincere as necessary it is for us, and this is: a bishops’ agreement, based on the equal [confessional] rights …”[7] Metropolitan Alexandru Şuluţiu’s answer came late, on February 10/22, 1862, and although he did not accomplish the initial request, the answer is a surprising one, if we are to read it in correlation with his pastoral letters[8] from the Neoabsolutist era. He wrote: “Your Excellency, the principle ‘Gleichberechtigung aller Nationalitäten und Confessionen’ has no bigger defender than me, and concerning the Romanian confessions, nobody wish more than I do that the word turns into body. […] as for me, it is nothing I can do, than sincerely recognize in front of you not only the right of perfect equality of the Orthodox confession with my confession, but also with other confessions of Transylvania […]. I am such a tight defender and claimant of equality of rights of the Orthodox confession – a sister of my confession -, like of my confession.”[9] So from the proselytist and provocative tone of the Neoabsolutist era, the Greek Catholic metropolitan passed to a pacifying, respectful one toward the Orthodox, recognizing the injustice they were submitted to.

Since the constitutional age of the monarchy opened, the Orthodox bishop took over again the role of political leader: “we see Bishop Şaguna from now on, incessantly, heading the Romanians: at conferences, congresses, deputation, Diets, etc. as a leader, fighting everywhere strongly to win the political-national and ecclesiastical rights.”[10]

When the Enlarged Imperial Senate (Verstärkter Reichsrat)[11] was summoned, so that the opinions and wishes of the people of the monarchy concerning the constitutionalism were to be consulted, Bishop Andrei Şaguna was designated by the emperor as a representative of the Romanians of Transylvania.[12] “His energetic stepping in the Enlarged Imperial Senate of 1860 […] made a great sensation all over, and brought him and his nation honour and general respect, transforming it into a respectable factor by the discussion of the empire’s inner affairs.”[13]

Although a partisan of the movement of emancipation of the peoples of the Austrian Monarchy, the bishop remained a good patriot but not a nationalist, even after the revolution and the dark century of Neoabsolutism. He made a “provocation to patriotism” in one of the meetings of the Imperial Senate of June 21, 1860, during the controversy with the Magyar deputy György Majláth on the exclusiveness of the Magyar language as an official language[14]: “Pervaded by patriotic feelings I have to express without much ceremony my conviction that each nation of Austria is filled with the necessity to take care in brotherly terms of its nationality, language, political value, without wishing, along that, to injure the other nations.”[15] The proof that Bishop Andrei Şaguna did not intend to support his nation exclusive, but he respected the freedom and identity of all other nations, is given by “many thank and trusting letters received from all Romanian and Slavic territories of the monarchy”[16], as a result of his above-mentioned position.

While he was participating in the Enlarged Imperial Senate – between March and September 1860 – the bishop insisted on the one hand for the restoration of the Metropolitanate, and on the other hand for to obtain the political consent to set up “The Transylvanian Society for the Romanian Literature and the Culture of the Romanian People” (“Asociaţiunea Transilvană pentru Literatura Română şi Cultura Poporului Român”, shortly ASTRA)[17]. The setting up of this society, in October/November 1861, was the result of the post-Neoabsolutism confessional concord; its first president was Bishop Andrei Şaguna, having Timotei Cipariu[18] as a vice-president and George Bariţiu as a secretary, the latter ones being Greek Catholics.

Concerning the organization of the monarchy on constitutional bases, two currents were born among the members of the Enlarged Imperial Senate: the federalist group – which insisted that constitutional rights should be given only those that had them before[19]; and the centralist group – which were asking for a representative constitution, with a central parliament for the entire monarchy.[20] Bishop Andrei Şaguna expressed a personally viewpoint, neutral toward both dominant currents, in a speech at the nineteenth meeting of September 26, 1860, in which he underlined point by point the essential conditions of the prosperity within monarchy. Out of the ten points, five had a religious character.[21]

The emperor sided with the federalists, who persuaded him to accept their position mainly with historical and not ethnic arguments, and he proclaimed by decree a constitution called the October Diploma (Oktoberdiplom)[22] – the main result of the Enlarged Imperial Senate of 1860. By the October Diploma the empire became a federal state with a central parliament as the advisory authority in matters of finance, commerce and industry. It allowed legislative autonomy all the provinces of the monarchy (granted Diets to the Habsburg Lands), without the essential features of sovereignty.

III.3.2 The second mixed eparchial synod of October 1860; insistences for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate

Among all the ecclesiastical issues, the most important “which concerned Şaguna every minute of his activity”[23] was the reestablishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania.

At the same time with the convocation of the Enlarged Imperial Senate and the increased role the Romanians were to have in the Transylvanian political life, there came up a new responsiveness of the Austrian officials toward Andrei Şaguna’s plans to re-establish the Metropolitanate and to improve the living standard of his clergy.[24]

On May 28, and 30, 1860, the Romanian and Serbian participants in the Imperial Senate at Vienna put their heads together on the issues of Orthodox Church’s organization. Patriarch Josip Rajačic insisted in favour of the Serbian supremacy, of course.[25] He wished the centre of the entire Orthodox Church of the Austrian Monarchy at Karlowitz, all the bishops having to be appointed in the synod from there.[26] Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina declared himself against the Serbian plans, although not in conformity with Andrei Şaguna’s idea of the incorporation of all Romanian eparchies in the Metropolitanate of Transylvania; the Bukovinian bishop pointed out that the people of Bukovina wished to have their own church organization according to their local needs, and to be able to administrate alone the Church funds[27].

The meetings did not have any result, due to the Serbian metropolitan’s opposition.[28] The peculiar effect of those discussions was the following: “The Serbians could convince themselves from Mocsonyi and Petrino’s words that they won’t be able to subordinate the Romanian Church in the future.[29]

The inefficiency of the discussions on Orthodox Church’s organization by the end of May 1860, followed by the Serbian petition and the Romanian contra-petition to the emperor, and by the disputes in the newspapers[30], determined the monarch to pass a resolution on September 27, 1860[31], in order to summon a synod of all the Orthodox bishops of the monarchy. The synod should present him all the wishes and suggestions for the reorganization of the Orthodox Church. In the resolution sent by the government to Bishop Andrei Şaguna through the Ministry of Public Worship and Instruction it was shown that: “His Majesty is not against the foundation of a non-Uniate Greek Romanian Metropolitanate …”[32] This was “the first positive pronouncement that any Austrian government had made on his innumerable petitions and memoranda concerning the metropolis [metropolitanate].”[33]

Using this favourable moment, Bishop Andrei summoned on October 23, 1860, the second mixed eparchial synod[34] composed of forty-six clergymen and fifty-two laymen. In this synod were to be debated and decided the future procedures necessary for the reestablishment of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate. Although the bishop had spoken on the occasion of the first mixed eparchial synod of 1850 about its annual meeting: “Our synod from today and the one coming next year[35], “next year” was to occur only after the decade of Neoabsolutism. As compared to the mixed synod of 1850, no representative of the régime was sent to survey the sessions.

In his opening speech of the synod, Bishop Andrei was declaring: “I assure you, gentlemen, that in my ministry I keep tight the rudder of the Church[36] on the one hand because it is the word of God; and on the other hand because I swore that I would carry the ministry out according to the laws of the Church. I thought that following this path I would not come across difficulties and obstacles; it is not so, because the influences from the outside (the political régime) take themselves the liberty to decide on Church’s issues according to worldly ways. Such circumstances caused me a lot of conflicts and traps, which did not sick me, on the contrary, they enthused me to struggle for the holy truth, which the issue of our Metropolitanate belongs to.”[37] Like in 1850 he expressed the discontent that he could not gather in the synod elected members, out of conviction that according to the Orthodox Tradition and canons the faithful are the ones who should choose their representatives for the eparchial synod. But he was again impeded to follow this rule: “I confess that I wished the clergy and faithful of this eparchy would have elected their representatives for the synod, so that I may not impose any synod as I did in 1850! Alas! As in 1850, our Church is not on the normal path even today, and this situation obstructed me to observe the most proper way to elect the members of the synod. But […] I convoked representatives of both clergy and laymen, based on canon 20 of Antioch …”[38]

The bishop informed the participants about all the procedures taken in the last years for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate. The synod presented on October 26, 1860, a new petition to the emperor in this respect, invoking the historical past of the Orthodox Church of Transylvania, as well as the Orthodox canons.[39] On the same day was sent an address to the bishops’ synod of Karlowitz too, having as object the raising of the Eparchy of Transylvania at the rank of metropolitanate “so that both Metropolitanates would work, like two good sisters, for the temporary and eternal good of their faithful.”[40]

Bishop Andrei Şaguna consulted once again Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina, as he had been guided by the Austrian Ministry of Public Worship[41], arguing canonical his idea to subordinate all the Romanian Orthodox eparchies in the Austrian Monarchy to one and only Metropolitanate, that of Transylvania.[42]

Although the laymen and a part of the clergy of Bukovina agreed with Bishop Andrei, Bishop Eugeniu Hacman summoned on February 7/19, 1861, a synod of priests at Czernowitz[43], where he suggested the establishment of a Metropolitanate of Bukovina with two suffragan bishops; the election of the metropolitan should be made in a provincial mixed synod, which has to elect three candidates, one of them being appointed by the emperor. Fearing the bishop, almost all the priests signed the presented proposals.[44]

This was the first concrete step that disturbed Andrei Şaguna’s idea of a metropolitanate for all the Orthodox Romanians in the Austrian Empire. In the spirit of the synod of February in Czernowitz a brochure that sustained a separate metropolitanate for the Orthodox of Bukovina came out.[45] Bishop Andrei counteracted it in “one of his most important works”[46], the polemical “Anthorismos”[47], then the controversy continued in several articles in “The Romanian Telegraph”.[48]

The author of “Anthorismos” pointed out: “In this work of mine, one can see clearly my canonistical knowledge, as well as my convictions about the state of our Orthodoxy. All our Orthodox clergy and people inhabiting that area agree with me; except brother Eugeniu of Bukovina and ten-twelve priests, the other part of Bukovina agrees with me.”[49] The Metropolitanate of Transylvania justified itself as a legitimate institution, continuing the old Metropolitanate of Alba-Iulia (the former Bălgrad) and so Bishop Andrei Şaguna planned the incorporation of all the Romanians of the Austrian Monarchy under its canonical jurisdiction: “In the final analysis, his attitude on the inclusion of Bukovina in the projected Rumanian metropolis [metropolitanate] owed less to national sympathies and formal arguments from canon law than to the evangelical sources of his religious and social thought: the unshakable conviction that the Christian faith was, or should be, the guiding force in the lives of individuals and nations, and that the church was the proper, though by no means exclusive, instrument to archive harmony between transcendental spiritual values and human institutions.”[50] A Metropolitanate of Bukovina was not justified from canonical and historical point of view, as long as the Eparchy of Bukovina was only the successor of the Eparchy of Rădăuţi separated, by the addition of North-Moldavia to the Habsburg Empire, in 1775, from its former Metropolitanate, that of Moldavia, with the residence at Iaşi.

In December 1861 the Serbian Metropolitan Josip Rajačić, the main obstacle against the plan of reestablishment of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate and the emancipation from Serbian hierarchy, passed away. Bishop Samuil Maširević of Timişoara was designated to replace him as an administrator of the vacant episcopal see. The delay of about three years in appointing the new patriarch prevented the serious negotiations between the Serbian Patriarchate of Karlowitz and the representatives of the Romanians of the monarchy, which the Court had stipulated as necessary preliminaries[51] for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate. The controversy between Serbians and Romanians became violent in the press. Yet, only a part of the Serbian clergy – especially the bishops – insisted to oppose the Romanian Church, while the laymen began to realize the justified demands of the Romanians and even to support them for to realize their goals. The Serbian newspaper “Vidovdan” of Belgrad was writing in No. 90 of February 15, 1862: “The Romanian metropolitan must by no means be subordinated to the Serbian patriarch, although the patriarchal office is higher than the metropolitan one. The Serbian patriarch will be the church leader of the Serbians and the Romanian metropolitan the leader of the Romanians; they can live side by side very well. […] it would be unworthy for the name of Serbians, to defend the un-justice by privileges. It is unworthy to prevent the Romanians from having their own hierarchy; it is unworthy to keep the Romanians by force in a union concerning the church administration; that is why if the Serbians would have had any rights, they must stay away from what is not right, because to give everyone what belongs to him/her is to be able to look more successfully for what is his/hers indeed.”[52]

The year 1862 was an apogee of the insistences meant to re-establish the Metropolitanate of Transylvania.

The Orthodox Romanians of the Eparchies of Banat and Arad held two conferences at Timişoara, on January 21, and February 10, 1862, where they decided to send a mixed delegation – made up of clergy and laymen – to Vienna to sustain their wish to re-establish the Metropolitanate.[53]

Bishop Andrei Şaguna himself led a delegation of representatives of the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania, Hungary, Banat and Bukovina at Court, “the most numerous and respectful from all [Romanian delegations] Vienna had seen before.”[54] The delegation presented a petition[55] which pointed out the Romanians historical right to have a metropolitanate, and asked the permission to gather a church congress of all Orthodox Romanians in Austria, made up of forty priests and sixty laymen, with the purpose to discuss the church organization and to elect the metropolitan; the congress should be led by the bishop of Sibiu, who had to organize the elections of deputies of Banat also, as the Orthodox Romanians who lived there had no bishop. Content with Bishop Andrei’s tactic in order to sustain the cause of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the monarchy, one of the deputies of Bukovina, Eudoxiu Hurmuzachi wished to thank flattering the cunning bishop: “Your Excellency said you are proud of us in the noble sense of the word, and we say we are proud of Your Excellency, in the noble sense of the word too.”[56]

On the other hand, the Greek Catholic Metropolitan Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu began a resolute campaign against the establishment of a rival metropolitanate.[57] Bishop Andrei Şaguna was perfectly aware of its intensity: “[…] I condition the solution of our Metropolitanate from the policy of the government; namely if the régime does not obey the Jesuit machinations, then it will be surely a favourable solution for us; His Excellency, the Greek Catholic Archbishop Şuluţiu’s protest plays a major role and belongs to such machinations.”[58]

It was only on June 29, 1863, that the Aulic Chancellery of Transylvania sent the imperial rescript (of June 25, 1863) by which the emperor declared himself in favour of the separation from the Serbian hierarchy, and the reestablishment of the Romanian Metropolitanate. The Chancellery asked to be answered several questions referring to the new metropolitanate, its canonical territory, residence and suffragan eparchies.[59] Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s answer did not let it waited: he declared himself once again in favour of a metropolitanate of all Orthodox Romanians in Austria, with the residence at Sibiu, having as suffragan eparchies the existing ones of Sibiu, Arad and Bukovina, plus other three which should be founded at Timişoara, Caransebeş and Cluj, the latter by division of the Eparchy of Arad. He asked to be returned to the Romanian Metropolitanate four monasteries administrated by the Serbian Metropolitanate, but which in the past were Romanian, namely Hodoş-Bodrog, Bezdin, Sângeorgiu and Mesici; also a part from the common church funds administrated by the Serbians should be given the Romanians. The election of the metropolitan was assigned to a church congress made up of clergy and laymen from all over the Metropolitanate, and that of the bishops to the mixed eparchial synods. He also made clear that the Serbian faithful living in Banat will not be done any un-justice, being led in the future by a Serbian bishop having the episcopal see at Werschetz.[60]

Bishop Eugeniu Hacman’s relationships with the Court had a word to say[61], because on March 28, 1864, the Aulic Chancellery of Transylvania disposed that the eparchial synod of Sibiu should be consulted if the new metropolitanate could not extend only over the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania, excluding Bukovina.[62]

III.3.3 The constitutional experimentation in Transylvania; the religious Law of 1863

In October and November 1860, after his coming back from the Enlarged Reichsrat, Bishop Andrei Şaguna initiated meetings with the Greek Catholic Metropolitan Sterca Şuluţiu and representatives of the intellectuals in order to find a common basis concerning the participation of Romanians in the political life of the monarchy. Finally they agreed on the points of a national programme; they also elected a delegation led on Andrei Şaguna’s request by the Greek Catholic metropolitan. The programme was delivered by the Romanian delegation to the emperor, on December 10, 1860. Among other things, the approval to hold a national congress of the Romanians was asked, but the emperor did not promise anything.[63] The result of the delegation’s activity at Vienna was discouraging.

But at the end of 1860 the new State Minister Anton von Schmerling was appointed and he started to organize the monarchy on constitutional bases[64]. Consequently, “at the beginning of the new year [1861] Romanian leaders had reason to be optimistic. The Court had finally given its consent for their national congress …”[65] Romanians were also announced to take part in the conference planned for January/February, 1861, at Alba-Iulia, in order to discuss with the Magyars and the Saxons the general principles which will shape the constitution of Transylvania.

The Romanian congress opened on January 1/13, 1861, at Sibiu, under the leadership of the Orthodox Bishop Andrei Şaguna and Greek Catholic Metropolitan Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu. The city of Sibiu “forgot” the offences from Blaj during the entire Neoabsolutist era “and so, the national assembly began and ended its session in the most beautiful harmony”[66]. At the final session, on January 4/16, a permanent National Committee meant to coordinate the future political activity was appointed, with both bishops as co-presidents.[67]

The planned conference of the nationalities of Transylvania took place at Alba-Iulia, on January 30-31/February 11-12, 1861, under the chair of the aulic chancellor of Transylvania, Baron Kemeny Ferencz. Bishop Andrei Şaguna participated along with only eight representatives of the Romanian nation in.[68] Because of the great Magyar majority of participants in the conference the purpose of it became “to urge the Transylvanian people to send deputies in the Diet of Pest and to recognize the union of the two countries [Hungary and Transylvania].”[69]

In one of his speeches Bishop Andrei pointed out the Romanian perspective on the future constitution of Transylvania, returning to the main themes of the Romanians’ claims, namely corporate rights for the Romanian people and its confessions: “the Romanian nation understands by liberty the normal state of its constitutional country, able to provide its life, honour and property; under illumination it understands to use the gift of the constitutional life based on equal rights concerning its religion, nationality, culture and use of its national language.”[70] Romanian representatives have also clearly expressed the principles of national equality and constitutional government in the spirit of respect for law.

The main legislative objective of the Romanians at that conference was a project of a new electoral law which had in view the universal vote, because the laws of the Diet of 1791[71] made on feudal bases by excluding the Romanians from the political life could no longer be taken into consideration, and the one shaped in 1848 was considered made in a hurry. Thus “we gave our vote for that new electoral law.”[72]

After the post-revolutionary period of mistrust, the conference of Alba-Iulia of January/ February 1861 was the first official meeting of the Romanians, Magyars and Saxons of Transylvania. Bishop Andrei Şaguna accommodated at the residence of the Roman Catholic Bishop Lajos Haynald, and it “appears that he had charmed the Magyars by his tact, humour and words, so that the newspapers were full of reports and commentaries on him; they were of course circumspect with ‘the old diplomat’, as they called him.”[73]

By the imperial Patent of February 26, 1861, the constitution following Schmerling’s views was elaborated. He militated in favour of a more pronounced centralization, the October Diploma of 1860 containing concessions on behalf of federalism. So the competences of the provincial Diets were considerably reduced and the central parliament had a decisive role. The members of the central parliament had to be elected by the provincial Diets.[74]

The Diet of Hungary opened at the beginning of April 1861 and on August 22 it was dissolved. It defended the autonomy of Hungary and refused to send deputies in the central parliament.[75] Concerning the union of Transylvania with Hungary, the big goal of the Magyars, Bishop Andrei Şaguna was found guilty, like in 1848/1849, for the Romanians’ opposition to it.[76]

The bishop wrote at the beginning of July, 1861: “It seems we are not in order with our national matters; I cannot see any pleasant icon of the political world, at least when I filter things inside my poor mind! It is also our certain fault that my perspective does not show anything good, because all of us want to lead the [political] issues, we do not have a centre, but all are Generals and Dukes; then [there is] excess of zeal! Everyone wants to surpass the other and works secretly!”[77] Dark but realistic, these observations determined him to overtake once again firmly the helm of politics, as he had done between 1848 and 1850.

After on August 22, 1861, the Diet of Pest was dissolved, the emperor summoned the Diet of Transylvania[78] by the rescript of September 19, 1861, in order to support Schmerling’s plans. But the government of Transylvania rejected the imperial rescript.[79]

Since the Romanians were interested to take part in the constitutional life of the country, they sent protesting petitions to the emperor and on October 18, 1862, received a promising imperial resolution.[80] Speculating the moment, the Orthodox and Greek Catholic bishops presented on December 2, 1862, a common petition asking the approval of a new congress of the Romanians in Transylvania.[81] The emperor’s answer of February 17, 1863, although favourable to organization of the congress, it established a very restrictive framework for its programme.[82]

So the second congress of the Romanians during the constitutional experimentation met at Sibiu, between April 8/20 and April 11/23, 1863. Both bishops participated as chairmen in.[83] “This congress was genuinely Andrei Şaguna’s creation, because he not only took the initiative, but also carried out the main role there.”[84] The sessions lasted “in best harmony possible[85]. Bishop Andrei was the one who transmitted the positive direction of the debates, while George Bariţiu was “the negative, opposing spirit.”[86] The congress elected a delegation of ten persons led again by the Orthodox Bishop to represent it at Court.[87] The emperor received the delegation on April 22/May 4, 1863, and he remarked especially “the serious word of the worthy chairman”[88]. Bishop Andrei Şaguna noticed in a private letter sent home, to his secretary: “Dear Nicolae! […] This evening, at 9 o’clock we are invited at the State Minister and tomorrow at an imposing banquet which the Viennese give in the honour of the deputies, as you can see from the invitation letter. That the works, behaviour and result of our congress make people astonished you could realize from the newspapers.”[89]

Describing the historical importance of this political meeting of the Romanians in Transylvania, a contemporary of the events underlined as essential the circumstance when the emperor considered and spoke for the first time to the Romanians as to a nation.[90] It was an important step toward the recognition of corporate political rights of a nation excluded for centuries from the political system of the country.

The emperor summoned the Diet of Transylvania again, by the rescript of April 21, 1863; the rescript established the first meeting for July 1, 1863, at Sibiu.[91] So after the Romanian national congress, the election for the Diet of Transylvania began. The same day with the rescript the emperor promulgated a new electoral law that increased a lot the number of the Romanians with voting right.[92]

It was for the first time when the Romanians of Transylvania participated in a democratic way in the Diet, by their elected representatives.[93]

The Saxons took also part in the Diet of Sibiu, but the Magyar and Szekler deputies, under the influence of the Magyars former revolutionaries Julius Andrássy[94] and Kálmán Tisza[95], decided do not take part in the Diet, contesting it as having been summoned on illegal bases. The Roman Catholic Bishop Lajos Haynald of Alba-Iulia paid the price of the episcopal see due to this gesture of nationalism, being dismissed and sent to Rome.[96]

Although appointed again by the emperor himself to participate in the Diet, Bishop Andrei Şaguna refused politely, preferring to attend it as a deputy of Sălişte, because he had been elected by people in this respect and did not want to deceive his electors trust.[97] His main desiderata remained the same, namely to obtain corporate rights for the Transylvanian Romanians: “he wanted, worked and fought for the equal rights of the Romanian nation and its Churches …”[98] Out of his speeches in the Diet one can see the bishop’s healthy political vision, following to improve what was already been a benefit, not denying the past just for to have something new: “Gentlemen! Not everything which is old is also bad. There are things that even because of their old age have the force of life for eternity, that will never grow old, but remain young. There are such things in the world, and in the old constitution of Transylvania I find such moments that will never grow old, but remain young, proving a young force. I identify such moments by the guarantee of the nationalities and confessions in the old constitution. This is, gentlemen, a valuable fortune of our country, which no other state of Europe can boast with. When in Europe there had been wars among brothers, in Transylvania there had been peace and brothers of different confessions had shaken friendly hands. Gentleman, one thing affects me! That the Romanians could not share the citizens rights […] because they had been excluded from the virtues of the country and condemned to carry the burdens. [our reference]”[99] Bishop Andrei proved also his sense of humour even in the meetings of the Diet: “I heard today from a friend of mine, that he wished to declare sincerely his convictions concerning the object of day; so shall I be sincere, leave to the judgement of the others to what extent talking on politics, one can be sincere…”[100]

The Transylvanian Diet of Sibiu interrupted its works on October 13, 1863, in order to allow its representatives to take part in the Reichsrat.[101]

When the Diet met again, after a year, its only task was to proclaim the union of Transylvania with Hungary.

Although he got actively involved in the works of the first session of the Diet (July-October 1863), Bishop Andrei could not participate in the second session (May-October 1864)[102] because of an illness[103], later he did not want to participate in anymore, except two times: “He had become disgusted with the people of the régime, who began to terrorize in an absolutist way the official deputies, obliging them to vote according to the wish of the régime.”[104] His plans concerning a real autonomous Transylvania, where all the inhabitants would be able to build their own destinies, were gradually replaced by a form of centralism, which menaced with bringing back the severe realities of the absolutism.[105]

The results of the Diet of Sibiu of 1863/1864 were not remarkable: “In two years time – since the middle of 1863 till the middle of 1865 – hardly had four-five laws been passed […] so that, when the régime changed, in 1865, Transylvania did not have any electoral law sanctioned.”[106]

A result of Andrei Şaguna’s political endeavours was the Article of Law of 1863, by which the Romanian nation and its confessions, the Greek Eastern (Orthodox) and Greek Catholic Churches, were recognized as equal with the other nations and confessions of the country.[107] The Article of Law of 1863 was promulgated by the emperor, on October 26, 1863, and it was published on May 30, 1864.[108]

 Now, that the state finally guaranteed corporate rights to Romanian nation and to the Orthodox Church of Transylvania, the bishop could be able to follow the desideratum of autonomy from Karlowitz, by the restoration of the old Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania. But the Article of Law of 1863 and all the others voted by the Diet of Sibiu in the years 1863-1864 had a short life, likewise the democratic constitutional experimentation in Transylvania. By the inauguration of the Austro-Hungarian Dualism in 1867 all the laws of that Diet have been annulled.[109]

The Orthodox bishop “was one of the few Rumanians at the Diet who grasped the seriousness of Austrian aims and who viewed the problems of Transylvania from the same broad perspective of the ‘Gesamtmonarchie’. […] Later, after 1867, when the compromise between the Court and the Magyars had become a reality, Şaguna was severely criticized for his haste in accepting Austrian terms.”[110]

III.3.4 The third mixed eparchial synod of March/April 1864; the bishops’ synod of August 1864, at Karlowitz

The eparchial mixed synod of 1860 had decided that in case the resolution to re-establish the Metropolitanate of Transylvania was not passed until St. George’s feast day (April 23) of 1861, the bishop should summon a new synod on May 1, 1861, to consult it regarding what he was going to undertake. Yet, this synod has not been summoned although the Metropolitanate had not been re-established.

Bishop Andrei Şaguna maintained his wish to have a yearly eparchial synod[111], but this thing was not possible until March/April 1864, when he could organize the third mixed eparchial synod[112] composed of eighty appointed and ninety-two elected deputies; so it was the first time during the ecclesiastical leadership of Bishop Andrei Şaguna, when a great part of the participants in the mixed eparchial synod of the Eparchy of Transylvania were elected. The same as at the synod of 1860 no state representative was sent.

Like at the former synod, the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate was the burning issue. The bishop informed the participants, this time too, about the steps he took in the last four years, with a view to re-establish the Metropolitanate. A new petition in this respect was presented to the emperor.[113]

The emperor answered positively the petition, on June 25, 1864. [114]

Apart from the topic of the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate, Bishop Andrei presented to the eparchial synod of 1864 a project of regulation conceived by himself concerning the organization of a metropolitanate according to the Orthodox canon law.[115] This project will constitute the nucleus of the future church constitution of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate, “The Organic Statute”, later the basis of the organization of the entire Romanian Orthodox Church, until today.

At the very beginning of the synod, a committee of twelve members, four priests and eight laymen, was chosen to study the “Project of Regulation”.[116] After it was debated in five meetings and modified by the synod, the applicability of the modified regulation was limited only within the Eparchy of Sibiu, being turned into practice between 1864 and 1868, in that eparchy.[117]

Fully content, the bishop was writing in a private correspondence, about this third mixed eparchial synod: “our synod went on well, the opinions came self-evidently and the conclusions were unanimous. This is why my satisfaction is so great.”[118] Only this was the last synod which could content him.

In July/August 1864 the congress meant to elect the Serbian patriarch and the bishops’ synod of Karlowitz gathered.[119] The representatives of the Romanian Orthodox of Arad and Banat went to Karlowitz too, not to take part in the congress but to give declarations on behalf of the Romanian faithful that they could not consider the new elected one as their archbishop and metropolitan. So they could not take part in his election, but wait to be granted the right – in accordance with their desire long expressed – to have their own Romanian metropolitan.[120]

The synod of the bishops headed by the new elected Patriarch Samuil Maširević decided, according to the emperor’s special assignment[121], to establish a Metropolitanate of the Romanians of Transylvania, Banat and Hungary, as it comes out of the third point of the Protocol of the synodal meetings.[122]

The mixed eparchial synod of Transylvania suggested by its request concerning the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate read in the synod of Karlowitz the reestablishment should be followed by the functioning of a permanent common bishops’ synod made up of all the Romanian and Serbian bishops members of the Romanian and Serbian Metropolitanates, as a sign of the dogmatic unity and of the united and identical avowal of the Orthodox faith.[123]

Coming later to Karlowitz, Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina brought the idea of three metropolitanates which could be created by that synod: “first in Bukovina (for him!) with two suffragan bishops, a Romanian and a Ruthenian one, the second in Transylvania, and the third at Karlowitz, with its still existent suffragan bishops.”[124]

Although the decision of the synod of Karlowitz was based on the emperor’s letter of August 13, 1864, which was in favour of the setting up of a Romanian Metropolitanate coordinated to the Serbian one, “the favourable opinion of the synod is due only to the mild and peaceful steps taken by him [Andrei Şaguna]; because on the contrary, although it was requested by the emperor, it could still be impeded or delayed, who knows how long.”[125]

The obstacles insistently created by the opponents of the Orthodox Romanian Metropolitanate of Transylvania were so big, that because of the delays of its restoration Bishop Andrei promised in the spring of 1864 do not take part in the Reichsrat as a member anymore until the cause of his Church was not solved. He told the political circles of Vienna: “[…]‘I won’t step in Vienna, until the Metropolitanate has been approved!’ And he kept his word.”[126]

[1] See Telegraful Român, No. 21, year VII, May 21, 1859, 81.

[2] Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 218-220.

[3] The peace of Zürich concluded based on the preliminary peace of Villafranca, of July 11, 1859, among Austria, France and Sardinia, marking the end of war with Sardinia. Cf. F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 185.

[4] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Andrei Şaguna şi românii din Transilvania în timpul decadei absolutiste, 57.

[5] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 268.

[6] See Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu, No. 420/1861, in: N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 120-122.

[7] Ibid., 120.

[8] Cf. the chapter III.2.4 herein.

[9] “Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu către Andrei Şaguna, Nr. 93/1862” (“Alexandru Sterca Şuluţiu to Andrei Şaguna, No. 93/1862”), in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 412-414. Cf. also N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 123-125.

[10] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 51.

[11] It is about so-called “verstärkter Reichsrat” summoned on March 5, 1860, and opened on March 31, 1860. It is considered “eine Institution, die ein wichtiges Glied im Übergang des Neo-Absolutismus zum Konstitutionalismus der österreich-ungarischen Monarchie bildet…” Verhandlungen des österreichischen verstärkten Reichsrathes 1860, Bd. 1, Vorwort des Herausgebers, 1.

The Reichsrat was reglemented in the §§ 96-98 of the Constitution of 4 March 1849, and it was the only institution of that Constitution which “survived” in the Neoabsolutist era too, being not dissolved. It was an empire wide, purely advisory council of state.

In 1860 Emperor Francis Joseph decreed (by the imperial Patent of March 5, 1860 (Reichsgesetzblatt 56/1860) and the imperial Decree of the same day (Reichsgesetzblatt 576/1860)) the Reichsrat should be enlarged by the addition of members proposed by the provincial Diets and selected by the Crown. “Der nunmehr einberufene verstärkte Reichsrat bestand tatsächlich neben den 12 ständigen Reichsratmitgliedern aus 10 auf Lebensdauer ernannten außerordentlichen Reichsräten und aus 38 für 6 Jahre ernannte Vertreter der einzelnen Länder. Da aber zum Zeitpunkt der Einberufung noch keine Landtage bestanden, wurden diese zeitlichn Mitglieder des Reichsrates vorläufig direkt vom Kaiser ernannt.“ Verhandlungen des österreichischen verstärkten Reichsrathes 1860, Bd. 1, Vorwort des Herausgebers, 2. See also F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 185-191.

[12] See Verhandlungen des österreichischen verstärkten Reichsrathes 1860, Bd. 1, 20.

[13] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 268.

[14] Cf. Verhandlungen des österreichischen verstärkten Reichsrathes 1860, Bd. 1, 122.

[15] Ibid., 126: “Durchdrungen von patriotischen Gefühlen muß ich meine Ueberzeugung offen dahin aussprechen, daß jede Nation in Oesterreich heute von der Nothwendigkeit erfüllt ist, für ihre Nationalität, ihre Sprache und ihre politische Geltung in brüderlicher Absicht zu sorgen, ohne die anderen Nationen dabei beeinträchtigen zu wollen.”

[16] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 271. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 91; “Comunitatea ortodoxă română din Arad către Andrei Şaguna” (“Romanian Orthodox community of Arad to Andrei Şaguna”), in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 131-132.

[17] More on this topic at D. ACU, Andrei Şaguna şi ctitorirea Asociaţiunii ASTRA, 14-20; P. MATEI, Mitropolitul Andrei Şaguna şi „Asociaţiunea”, 207-210; Mihai SOFRONIE, Mitropolitul Andrei Şaguna şi Asociaţiunea Transilvană (ASTRA), Constanţa 2001.

[18] Timotei Cipariu (1805-1887), a former revolutionary of 1848, was a philologist, journalist, and professor of philosophy and theology. Born into a peasant family, he received a splendid education between 1814 and 1825 at the Greek Catholic schools of Blaj, was ordained a Uniate priest in 1827, and became professor of philosophy at the lyceum in 1828, and of dogmatic theology at the seminary in 1830. In 1847 he founded one of the first Romanian newspapers in Transylvania, “Organul Luminării”(“The Organ of Enlightenment”). Cf. Keith HITCHINS, Cipariu, Timotei, in: Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions (online).

[19] The federalist-autonomist group prevailed. They represented the high aristocracy and were opposed to drastic constitutional reforms.

[20] Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 223-224.

[21] Cf. Verhandlungen des österreichischen verstärkten Reichsrathes 1860, Bd. 2, 284-287.

[22] The Oktoberdiplom was issued by Emperor Francis Joseph on October 20, 1860. Since German liberal groups in Austria and the Hungarian population voiced their resistance (tax strike), the Oktoberdiplom was replaced by the centralistic February Patent in February of 1861. See F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 191-197.

[23] I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 325.

[24] Ibid., 239.

[25] “Der serbische Patriarch Rajacici bat 1860 den Kaiser, nach den Kanones im ganzen Reich eine einheitliche Hierarchie für alle Orthodoxen, gleich welcher Nationalität, unter der Jurisdiktion von Karlovci zu schaffen.” Th. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur, 35.

[26] Bishop Andrei Şaguna understood this desire of the Serbian patriarch as a desire for a “total and everlasting submission of the Romanian nation under his patriarchate.” Cf. “Andrei Şaguna către Emanuil Gojdu” (“Andrei Şaguna to Emanuil Gojdu”), dated Sibiu, April 29/May 11, 1861, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 338-346 here 344.

[27] As a matter of fact, the Eparchy of Bukovina could have a lot of funds to administrate, but after the incorporation of Bukovina in the Habsburg Empire, in 1775, Emperor Joseph II decided to drastically reduce the Orthodox monastery settlements (from twenty-five to three), their consistent fortunes being administrated by the state; the same thing happened in 1789 with the properties of the Orthodox Eparchy of Rădăuţi. The Church’s fortunes and their income, known as “The Religious Fund”, were administrated according to the “Spiritual Regulation” (“Geistlicher Regierungsplan”) of April 29, 1787, the emperor himself was called the protector of the fund, its administration, conservation and use, all depending on him and being declared “official affair”, of public interest. Cf. P. CIOBANU, Fondul Bisericesc Ortodox Român din Bucovina, 6-8.

[28] See M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 824.

[29] “Ziar despre consiliul imperial înmulţit” (“Diary about the enlarged imperial council”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Documente pentru limbă şi istorie, vol. I, 321-339 here 332.

[30] See the chapter III.2.6 herein.

[31] See “Resoluţiunea împărătéscă din 27 Sept. 1860 privitore la restaurarea metropoliei” (“The imperial resolution of September 27, 1860, concerning the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 167-168.

[32] Ibid., 168.

[33] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 240.

[34] See Actele Soboarelor Bisericii greco-răsăritene din Ardeal din anii 1850 şi 1860, Sibiiu 1864; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 99-101.

[35] “A.B.M. 3272 Predică în Duminica întâia a Postului Mare, rostită în Braşov, la 1850, întru suvenirea reînvierii Sinodului bisericesc al Episcopiei româneşti din Sibiu” (“A.B.M. 3722 Sermon on the first Sunday of Lent, uttered at Braşov, in 1850, in the context of the revival of the church synod of the Romanian Eparchy of Sibiu”), in: D. MAN, Un nou manuscris, 124-132 here 127.

[36] It is about the book of Canons of the Orthodox Church – Pedalion, Rudder (Πηδάλιον). See The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: the Compilation of the Holy Canons by Saints Nicodemus and Agapius, translated into English by D. Cummings, Reprinted, New York 1983.

[37] Actele Soboarelor…1850 şi 1860, 71.

[38] Ibid., 73 et seq.

According to c. 20 of Antioch the synods of the bishops of each province should be held twice a year – in regard to ecclesiastical needs, and the settlement of disputes – and shall be attended, in addition, by presbyters and deacons and by all those who deem themselves to have been treated unjustly or to have been wronged in any way, and who wish to have their cases reviewed by the synod. See the text of the canon in the annex XV herein.

[39] See “Petiţiunea sinodului diecesan din Sibiiu la Împăratul, din 26 Oct. 1860 pentru reînfiinţarea metropoliei” (“The petition of October 26, 1860, of the eparchial synod of Sibiu to the emperor, for the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 168-173.

[40] “Adresa sinodului diecesan din Sibiiu dela 26 Oct. 1860 cătră sinodul metropolitan din Carloviţ” (“The address of October 26, 1860, of the eparchial synod of Sibiu to the metropolitan synod of Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 173-176 here 176.

[41] See “Resoluţiunea împărătéscă din 27 Sept. 1860 privitore la restaurarea metropoliei” (“The imperial resolution of September 27, 1860, concerning the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 167-168 here 168.

[42] See “Episcopul Şaguna cătră Hacman, episcopul Bucovinei, din sinodul diecesan ţinut în Sibiiu în Oct. 1860” (“Bishop Şaguna to Bishop Hacman of Bukovina, from the diocesan synod held at Sibiu, in October, 1860”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 177-180.

[43] The synod was exclusively made of priests, although “a zealous Romanian professor of theology, the morning star, the favourite of the clergy, a bright man famous for his constant and pure character, for his spirit and erudition, namely Father Calinciuc had explaned the necessity to invite Christian laymen in such a synod, where such an important issue is debated. This was in vain!” “Respunsul lui G. Hurmuzachi cătră Şaguna” (“G. Hurmuzachi’s answer to Şaguna”), dated Cernăuţi, February 9/21, 1861, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 182-185 here 182.

[44] Cf. ibid., 182.

[45] The title of the brochure was: “The Wishes of the Orthodox Clergy of Bukovina concerning the Canonical Organization of the Eparchy and its Hierarchical Position within the Orthodox Church in Austria”. See the chapter V.1.2 herein.

[46] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 189.

[47] The Romanian version: Andreiu Baronu de ŞAGUNA, Anthorismos sau desluşire comparativă asupra broşurei ,,Dorinţele dreptcredinciosului cleru din Bucovina în privinţa organisărei canonice a diecezei, şi a ierarhiei sale referinţe în organismulu bisericei ortodoxe din Austria”, Sibiiu 1861.

The German version: Andreas Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung über die Broschüre ,,Die Wünsche des rechtgläubigen Klerus aus der Bukovina in Betreff der kanonischen Organisirung der Diöcese und ihrer hierarchischen Stellung im Organismus der orthodox-orientalischen Kirche in Österreich.”, Hermannstadt 1863. See the chapter V.1.2 herein.

[48] See the chapters V.1.2, V.1.3, VI.2.3.2 herein. Cf. also Telegraful Român: 82/1862, 321-323; 83/1862, 329-330; 100/1862, 395-396; 101/1862, 400-401; 102/1862, 404-405.

[49] Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Bishop Neofit Scriban of Edessa and provisory of Argeş, dated Sibiu, May 13, 1863, in: C. ERBICEANU, Corespondenţe privitoare la relaţiile lui Şaguna cu arhiereii din Ţara Românească şi Moldova, 744-745 here 745. Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 278-279.

[50] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 190.

[51] See “Resoluţiunea împărătéscă din 27 Sept. 1860 privitore la restaurarea metropoliei” (“The imperial resolution of September 27, 1860, concerning the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 167-168.

[52] “Vidovdan şi ierarhia românească” (“Vidovdan and the Romanian hierarchy”), in: Telegraful Român, No. 17, year X, Sibiu, March 1, 1862, 83.

[53] Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 828-829.

[54] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 218.

[55] See “Adresa deputaţiunii române cătră împăratul presentată la 3/15 Martie 1862” (“The Romanian deputies’ address presented to the emperor on March 3/15, 1862”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 200-205.

[56] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 227.

[57] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 240-241.

[58] “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Mocsonyi” (“Şaguna’s answer to Mocsonyi”), dated Sibiu, March 25/April 6, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 207.

[59] See “Nadasdy cătră Şaguna în privinţa teritoriului metropoliei române şi. a.” (“Nádasdy to Şaguna concerning the territory of the Romanian Metropolitanate et al.”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 208-209.

[60] See “Respunsul lui Şaguna cătră Nadasdy” (“Şaguna’s answer to Nádasdy”), dated Sibiu, July 26, 1863, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 210-216.

    It is interesting to notice in this answer, too, Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s open mind, his forward-looking. He was not stone-still into the past, but always took a good look into the future, which he was building in the light of the concrete conditions of the present. Although the old Metropolitanate of Transylvania had its centre at Alba-Iulia, it incorporated apart from the Archbishopric of Alba-Iulia other three eparchies, Maramureş, Silvaş and Vad (Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Promemorie, 3), he had a new vision on the metropolitanate, adapted the new historical conditions.

[61] Taking into consideration the very consistent “Religious Fund” of the Eparchy of Bukovina administrated by the state, personally by the emperor, it is very easy to understand why Bishop Eugeniu Hacman had “special relationships” with the Court. At length on “The Religious Fund” see the chapter VII.5 herein.

[62] See “Vice-cancelariul aulic pentru Transilvania Bar. Reichenstein cătră Şaguna insistând a se pronuncia sinodul diecesan asupra întrebării, dacă metropolia, ce are a se înfiinţa nu ar fi să se estindă numai asupra românilor ortodoxi din Transilvania” (“The aulic vice-chancellor of Transylvania Baron Reichenstein to Şaguna, insisting that the eparchial synod should pronounce on the question if the metropolitanate which was to be established could not extend only over the Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 216-218.

[63] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 106; M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 10.

[64] “Schmerlings System beruhte letztlich darauf, daß er hier die Deutschen, dort die Magyaren gleichsam als Teilhaber an der bisher von der Dynastie allein getragener Macht angenommen hatte, die dafür den österreichischen Gesamtstaat mittragen und gegen die Ansprüche andere Völker der Monarchie wie gegen die Angriffe von außen verteidigen sollten.“ F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 205.

[65] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 108.

[66] A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 92.

[67] Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 93; K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 110; M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 10; M. SOFRONIE, Activitatea politică a lui Andrei Şaguna. 1863-1864, 35.

[68] Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 93; M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 11.

[69] I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 236.

[70] From Andrei Şaguna’s speech at the regnicolar conference of Alba Iulia, in: Telegraful Român, No. 6, year IX, Sibiu, February 9, 1861, 21.

[71] About the legislation of the Diet of 1791 see R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 98-110.

[72] A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 93. See also M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 10-11; M. SOFRONIE, Activitatea politică a lui Andrei Şaguna. 1863-1864, 35.

[73] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 280.

[74] The February Patent is a constitution drawn up by State Minister Anton von Schmerling which was enacted throughout the Austrian Empire by Emperor Francis Joseph on February 26, 1861, amending the Oktoberdiplom of October 20, 1860, and forming the basis for a constitutional government. The February Patent divided the legislative branch of government between the Crown and two houses of the Reichsrat. The parliamentary deputies were elected by the legislative assemblies in the provinces (Landtage). Landtage were formed after the enactment of a decree allowing assemblies in the provinces. As Hungary and, at first, Galicia opposed the February Patent on the grounds that it was too centralist, it did not take effect throughout the empire and was suspended on September 20, 1865. Later it would form the basis for the constitution of 1867 for the Western half of the Austrian Empire. See F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 197-205.

[75] “Die ungarischen Kabinettsmitglieder versuchten auch noch vor der Eröffnung des für den 2. April 1861 einberufenen Landtages die nicht nur von Schmerling und seinem Anhang, sondern auch von ihnen pessimistisch beurteilten Verhandlungen zu präjudizieren, indem sie erstens verlangten, daß ungarischen Angelegenheiten nur durch ungarische Minister behandelt werden dürften, und zweitens den ungarischen Hofkanzler der Verpflichtung enthoben wissen wollten, seine Vorträge nur über den Ministerpräsidenten an den Kaiser zu bringen.” F. WALTER, Österreichische Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgeschichte von 1500-1955, 206.

[76] Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 242; the chapter III.1.4 herein.

[77] Andrei Şaguna’s letter to George Bariţiu, dated Sibiu, July 3, 1861, in: G. BARITIU, Parti alese din istori`a Transilvaniei, 572-573.

[78] During the era of the Austrian reign (1688-1868) the Transylvanian Diet only met if summoned by the Sovereign. From 1762 to 1790 the Diet was not summoned; from 1790 to 1866 only twelve times, when each session could last up to several months. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the meetings took place almost without exception either at Sibiu or at Cluj. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 370.

[79] See A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 68.

[80] See K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 129-130; A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 69-70.

[81] Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 94.

[82] See I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 66.

[83] Cf. M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 11.

[84] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 280.

[85] A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 94.

[86] I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 250.

[87] Cf. A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 94; I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 67; M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 11-12.

[88] Telegraful Român, No. 34, year XI, Sibiu, April 25/May 7, 1863, 132.

[89] “Andrei Şaguna către Nicolae Popea” (“Andrei Şaguna to Nicolae Popea”), dated Vienna, May 5, 1863, în: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 173.

[90] See N.[icolae] P.[opea], “Congressulu romanu si diuarele straine” (“The Romanian congress and the foreign newspapers”), in: Telegraful Român, No. 34, year XI, Sibiu, April 25/May 7, 1863, 133.

[91] Cf. I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 67-68; M. DRĂGOI, Rolul lui Andrei Şaguna, 12.

At length on the Diet of 1863/1864 see R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 117-140; Simion RETEGAN, Dieta românească a Transilvaniei (1863-1864), Cluj-Napoca 1979.

[92] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 138; R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 121.

[93] The constitutional structure of the Diet, consisting of about 300-400 members, hardly changed during time; about 75-80% were nobles who tried to assert their own social class interest. The appointment of the “Regalists” (often 50% of the assembly) by the monarch strengthened the majority of the nobles. In addition there where the members of the Transylvanian government, the members of the Royal Table (regional Court of Appeal), and other high jurisdictional or administrative officers. Only about 20% of all the members of the Diet were actually elected by voting assemblies. The members did not represent the ethnic composition of the country. The Romanians, by far the most numerous ethnic group, were excluded from Diet for centuries, and from 1733 onwards only the respective bishop of the Uniate Romanian Church (in his position as an estate owner) was allowed to participate in the meetings. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 370-371.

[94] Gyula/Julius Andrássy (1823-1890), one of the leading figures in the 1848-49 Hungarian revolution, supported the liberal programme of Lajos Kossuth and after the Hungarian defeat he went into exile, mostly in Paris and London, until 1858. With Francis Deák he then rose to prominence in the negotiations leading to the Ausgleich (compromise) of 1867, which created the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Andrássy was (1867-1871) the first constitutional premier of Hungary. Cf. R. A. KANN, Z. V. DAVID, The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526-1918, 303, 349 et seqq.

[95] Kálmán Tisza (1830-1902), son of an old Calvinist family, entered politics in the Hungarian revolution of March, 1848. Elected (1861) to the Hungarian parliament, he led the radical group that later opposed the Ausgleich of 1867, which created the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. He was Hungarian premier (1875-1890). Cf. ibid., 349, 353 et seqq.

[96] See A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 95.

Layos Haynald (1816-1891), who early in 1848 was appointed chancellor-director to the prince-primate, refused to publish the declaration of April 14, 1849, when the Hungarian parliament proclaimed the independence of Hungary. The consequence was that he lost his position, whereupon he returned to his birth-place Szécsény. At the close of the revolutionary war he was restored to his office; on September 15, 1851, he was appointed coadjutor of the bishop of Transylvania, Nicholas Kovács, whom he succeeded on  October 15, 1852.

On the publication of the October Diploma, in 1860, Haynald became one of the champions of the union of Transylvania with Hungary. His political opinions and activity thereupon brought him into conflict with the Viennese government. Count Francis Nádasdy, head of the Transylvanian Chancellery, accused Haynald of disloyalty. Haynald went to Vienna and presented a memorial in which he set forth his political views. Notwithstanding this, the dissensions between the government and Haynald continued, and resulted in Haynald’s resignation in 1863.

Cf. Ludwig Haynald, in: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 6, 678; Th. V. BOGYAY, Ludwig Haynald, in: LThK, ²1957-1968, Bd. 5, 42.

[97] See I. LUPAŞ, Importanţa Mitropolitului Andrei Şaguna în istoria noastră naţională, 1031.

[98] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 290.

[99] Andrei Şaguna’s speech in the eighteenth meeting of the Diet of Sibiu of 1863, stenographical notices, in: Telegraful Român, No. 74, year XI, Sibiu, August 20, 1863, 298.

    We underlined this beautiful description made in proud terms by Bishop Andrei to the first state-legally embodied religious tolerance in Europe, still at the end of the sixteenth century four Christian denominations being recognized by law in Transylvania.

[100] Andrei Şaguna’s speech in the nineteenth meeting of the Diet of Sibiu of 1863, stenographical notices, in: Telegraful Român, No. 75, year XI, Sibiu, August 22, 1863, 303.

[101] Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 131.

[102] “The activities of Diet were long-winded and complicated – not atypical of the period.” R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 370.

[103] In photography from the years 1863/1864 one can see he was tired. See it in the annex II herein.

[104] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 295.

[105] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 144.

[106] I. PUŞCARIU, Notiţe, 75.

[107] “Nach zehn Verhandlungstagen nahm das Plenum am 7. September 1863 im wesentlichen die vom Ausschuß vorgelegte Gesetzartikel ‘betreffend die Gleichberechtigung der romanischen Nation und ihrer Confessionen’ an. Darin wird zum Ausdruck gebracht: ‘Die gesetzlich anerkannten Nationen, als die Nation der Ungarn, der Szekler, der Sachsen und der Rumänen sind einander gegenüber vollkommen gleichberechtigt, und genießen als solche im Sinne der siebenbürgerischen Landesverfassung gleiche politische Rechte.’ (Protokoll und Reden, 294) Desgleichen werden die griechisch-katholische und die griechisch-orthodoxe Kirche den vier rezipierten Kirchen, der römisch-katholischen, der reformierten, der evangelischen und unitarischen gleichgestellt. Auch die beiden neue hinzugekommenen Bekenntnisse ordnen ihre eigenen kirchlichen und Schulangelegenheiten in eigener Verantwortung unter nomineller Oberaufsicht der Krone (§1-3).” R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 128.

[108] Cf. I. LUPAŞ, Vieaţa, 267; R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 128-129.

[109] See the chapter IV.3.2 herein. Cf. R. KUTSCHERA, Landtag und Gubernium, 140.

[110] K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 142-143.

[111] See Andrei Şaguna’s circular letter No. 165/1864, in: Gh. TULBURE, Mitropolitul Şaguna, 450-451.

[112] Cf. Actele Sinodului Bisericei greco-resaritene in Ardealu din anulu 1864, Sibiiu 1864; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 108 et seqq.

[113] See “Petiţiunea sinodului diecesan din Sibiiu din 22 Martiu st. v. 1864 cătră împăratul în causa reînfiinţării metropoliei” (“The petition of the diocesan synod from Sibiu of March 22/[April 3], 1864, to the emperor, concerning the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 218-221.

[114] Cf. “Autograful împărătesc pentru înfiinţarea metropoliei române şi denumirea episcopului Şaguna de archiepiscop şi metropolit” (“The imperial autograph for the establishment of the Romanian Metropolitanate and appointment of Bishop Şaguna as an archbishop and metropolitan”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 305.

[115] See A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu pentru organisarea trebiloru bisericesci, scolare, si fundationale romane de Relegea greco-orientale in Statele austriace, Sibiiu 1864.

At length on Andrei Şaguna’s “Project of Regulation” see the chapters V.2 and V.3.2 herein.

[116] Cf. Actele Sinodului…1864, 6.

[117] Cf. the chapter V.3.2 herein.

[118] Andrei Şaguna’s letter to A. Mocsonyi, dated Sibiiu, April 6/18, 1864, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 485-486 here 486.

[119] Cf. “Samuil Maşirevici către Andrei Şaguna” (“Samuil Maširević to Andrei Şaguna”), dated Karlowitz, September 2, 1864, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/2, 191.

[120] See “Dechiaraţiunea representanţilor români cătră comisariul împărătesc Bar. Philippovics la congresul din Carloviţ” (“The declaration of the Romanian representatives at the congress of Karlowitz to the imperial commissary Baron Philippovics”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 222-226; “Memorandul representanţilor români la congresul din Carloviţ cătră Împăratul” (“The memorandum of the Romanian representatives at the congress of Karlowitz to the emperor”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 226-235.

[121] The emperor’s assignment was given by his hand written letter of August 13, 1864. Cf. “Protocolul şedinţelor sinodale, ţinute în 13 şi următorele dile ale lui August 1864 în Carloviţ” (“The protocol of the synodal meetings held on 13th and the follwing days of August, 1864, at Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 285-291 here 287.

[122] Ibid., 287.

[123] Ibid., 288.

[124] N. POPE`A, Vechi`a Metropolia, 278-279. See also “Propunerile episcopului Bucovinei Eugenie Hacman la sinodul din Carloviţ” (“Bishop of Bukovina Eugeniu Hacman’s suggestions at the synod in Karlowitz”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 248-252.

[125] N. POPEA, Archiepiscopul şi Metropolitul, 139.

[126] Ibid., 139.

More...

mihaela.stan December 28, 2016 Drept si Religie