History of Hermannstadt

7/29/2019 History of Hermannstadt

1/96


2/96


3/96

I


4/96


5/96

THE ORTHODOX CHURCHIN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY


6/96


7/96

History of the Orthodox Churchin Austria-Hungary

I. HERMANNSTADT

BY

MARGARET G. DAMPIER

PUBLISHED FORTHE EASTERN CHURCH ASSOCIATION

RIVINGTONS34 KING STREET, CO VENT GARDENLONDON


8/96


9/96

PKEFACEIN compiling this little book I have reliedchiefly on Archbishop Schaguna, Geschichte derGriechiscli - orientalischen Kirche in Oestreich.Hermannstadt, 1862 ; Hurzumaki, Fragmentszur Geschichte der Rumanen, vol. ii., Bucharest,1881 ; Slavic!, Die Rumanen, Vienna, 1881 ;E. von Radic', Die orthodox-orientalischen Par-tikularkirchen in den Ldndern der ungarischenKrone, Buda-Pest, 1886 ; Archbishop Milas,Das Kirchenrecht der morgenldndischen Kirche,Zara, 1897; Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, Inns-bruck and Mainz (which contains in full theOrganic Statute for the Metropolitanate ofHermannstadt), 1868 ; Miller, The Balkans,1896; Vambery, Hungary, 1899; and J. H.Schwicker, Die Lander Oesterreich-Ungarns inWort und Bild: Siebenburgen, Vienna, 1881.I have preferred generally to use the nameTransylvania, although the province is com-monly called Siebenburgen by Austro-Hungarianwriters.

M. G. D.


10/96


11/96

CONTENTSCHAP. PAGE

i. THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA, ... 1ii. THE EOUMANIAN CHURCH IN TRANSYLVANIA

BEFORE THE UNION, 9

in. THE UNION, 32iv. 1700-1783, 51

v. 1783-1873, 59

APPENDIX. THE METROPOLITANATE OF HERMANNSTADT, 71


12/96


13/96

HISTORY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHIN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

CHAPTER ITHE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA

THE earliest inhabitants of the province of Transylvaniaof whom we have certain knowledge were the Getaeor Dacians, who meet us frequently in the pages ofclassical historians. Ancient Dacia was far larger in Ancient

T- i Dacia.extent than the present kingdom of Roumania, andincluded on the north the territory of Transylvania.Its capital city, Sarmizegethusa, occupied the site ofwhat is now the village of Varhely, in the beautifulHatzeg valley.1 The Dacians first came into conflictwith the Roman power in 111 B.C., when they opposedthe Roman armies on the banks of the Danube,and although they were driven back by the Romangeneral, they continued to harass the Roman provinces First con-

/ n/ i i flictswithas far as Macedonia on the south and the coastlands Rome,of Dalniatia on the west. The campaign which JuliusCaesar had planned against them was frustrated owing

1

Cp. Schwicker, p. 66.A


14/96

2 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYto his murder by Brutus, and the successes of Augustusand Vespasian were only of a temporary character.Both these emperors transported large numbers of thepeople across the Danube into the Roman provinceof Moesia.The peace thus gained was disturbed more seriously

than before in 86 A.D. by the invasion of Moesia by alarge and well-armed force of Dacians under theirking, Decebalus.

Domitian found himself obliged to undertake acampaign against them, of which the results were farfrom glorious to the Roman arms. Decebalus indeedmade terms with the Roman emperor and restored theprisoners whom he had taken, but Domitian was com-pelled to pay an annual tribute and to acknowledgeDecebalus as king of the Dacians.

First Thus matters continued till A.D. 98, when Trajanunderaign ascended the imperial throne and refused to continueA?^'. the tribute. He made immediate preparations for a

campaign against Dacia, which, after severe fightingand the endurance of great hardships by the imperialtroops, was brought to a successful conclusion by thecapture of Sarmizegethusa and the submission ofDecebalus. Trajan spared his life, but imposed severeterms, including the dismissal of all Roman deserterswho had served in the Dacian army, the surrender ofall arms and the destruction of fortresses, and thequartering of a Roman garrison in Sarmizegethusa.Decebalus was compelled to agree, and swore fidelityto Rome; but Trajan had no sooner withdrawn hisarmies than the Dacian king began preparations for a


15/96

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 3fresh revolt. This necessitated a second campaign in Secondcampaign105-106 A.D. 105-106A.D.The Roman armies again advanced into Dacia and

were fiercely opposed by the Dacians, who at last, whenfurther resistance was impossible, set fire to theircapital, the defenders taking poison rather than fallinto the hands of their enemies. Decebalus refused tosurrender and committed suicide when the Romansoldiers approached to capture him.

Dacia thus became a Roman province, and Trajan Dacia acelebrated his hard-earned victory with one of the Province,most magnificent triumphs which Roman history A-D~records.

Dacia remained under Roman rule till A.D. 274.The land, which had been greatly depopulated bythese devastating campaigns, received a great influx ofcolonists from all parts of the Roman empire, includingDalmatia, Gaul, and lower Italy. Roman towns sprangup in all parts of the country, but chiefly in placeswhich had already been inhabited by the Dacians.In place of Sarmizegethusa arose the city of UlpiaTrajana, now represented by Varhely, which containsmany Roman remains. The Roman occupation broughtits usual benefits to the newly-conquered province,although it is evident that the Dacians had madeconsiderable progress in the arts of peace as well asthose of war, even before the Roman conquest.But now, in addition to the growth of new and

important towns, such as Apulum (Karlsburg), Napoca(Klausenburg), Potaissa (Thorda), etc., excellent roadswere made in all directions, and a great impulse was


16/96

4 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYgiven to trade and to the working of the silver, iron,and salt mines.Of the native inhabitants of Dacia some had fled

before the Romans into the fastnesses of the Carpathianmountains, while others remained or returned laterand intermarried with the new settlers. Thus a gradualfusion of the two races took place ; the old Dacianreligion was merged into that of Rome, while the Latintongue, mixed with many Dacian words, became bydegrees the ordinary language of the people.

It is true that at times there were disturbances andrevolts in the province, but on the whole all was quietunder the Roman occupation until the first attacks ofthe barbarians, which began about 120 A.D., under theEmperor Hadrian.These raids were renewed with greater vigour during

Gothic the reign of Caracalla (212 A.D.), and in 247 A.D. theS^FAJD"' first invasion of the Goths took place.

The attacks of this latter tribe became more numerousand irresistible till 269 A.D., when they were defeatedby Claudius at Naissus in Moesia.

Roman This checked their advance in Moesia, but they con-wtthdrftwn, tinued to overrun Dacia, till Aurelian, despairing of

holding the province against them, withdrew his legionsacross the Danube (274 A.D.). Many of the colonistsfollowed, and formed a new Daco-Roman colony inMoesia under the title of Dacia Aureliana.The province of Dacia now found itself abandoned

to successive inroads of barbarian invaders who floodedthe country from the end of the tenth to the begin-ning of the thirteenth century. Goths, Huns, Gepidae,


17/96

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 5Avars, in turn occupied or passed through the countryas they pressed steadily westward.Under the Goths who were less savage than many Goths inof the succeeding tribes the Daco-Roman colonists,who had remained north of the Danube, were able tocarry on trade and agriculture. Their numbers werereinforced in 330 A.D. through the temporary re-occupation of Dacia by the Emperor Constantine.Many of the exiles from Dacia Aureliana returned inthe wake of the Roman armies and settled again intheir old homes, and although Constantine was notable to hold the province, the Daco-Romans continuedto live peacefully under Gothic rule. Their returnwas followed by the introduction of Christianity among christian-the Goths, who had been pagans hitherto, although ducedthere must certainly have been many Christians Cm 380 'amongst the original Daco-Roman inhabitants of theprovince. 1

Dacia was thus completely Christianised before theinvasion of the Huns in 375 A.D.At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 A.D., Dacia wasassigned to the jurisdiction of Constantinople.2To the Goths succeeded the wild and savage Huns,who were followed by the Gepidae (c. 450) and theAvars (c. 560).The latter powerful tribe held the province till Avars,626 A.D., when they sustained a crushing defeat at 5e A ' r '

the hands of the Emperor Heraclius, from which their

1 Schaguna, chap. i. pp. 1-7.- Cp. Can. 28 ; Schag. , p. 7 ; E. v. Radio, p. 46.


18/96

6 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYpower never really recovered. They gradually dis-appeared, and from the beginning of the ninth to theend of the eleventh century Dacia came largely underBulgarian influence.

Bulgarian The first Bulgarian kingdom, which lasted from theinfluence, . " .810-1018 accession of the Bulgarian chieftain Krum, m 810 A.D.,to the death of the Czar Simeon, in 1018, extendedits authority not only over the Daco-Romans south ofthe Danube, in Dacia Aureliana, but also over theircompatriots north of the river.During this period the Hungarians made their first

appearance, settling originally in the eastern parts ofthe province, and in what is now Bessarabia. Beingdriven out by Czar Simeon of Bulgaria, they moved

Hungarians, westward into Hungary, where they finally settled andconsolidated their power, so that by the end of theeleventh century they had become powerful enough to

Annex annex the north-eastern part of Dacia, which we nowvania, c. know as Transylvania. This province thus came to

form part of the Hungarian kingdom.From about 900-1227 A.D., Dacia was overrun, first byKumani. the Pechenegs and then by the Kurnani, which latter

tribe gave to the province the name of Kumania. Thegrowing power of the Hungarians, however, under thehouse of Arpad (1078-1301) gradually dominatedthese tribes, and the Kumani disappear as a separatefactor from history, after their conversion, in A.D.1227.

Mongols, The last barbarian invasion to which Dacia, inA.D. common with Hungary, was subjected, was that of the

Mongols in 1240 A.D., which caused widespread desola-


19/96

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 7tion everywhere. They were driven out, after desperatefighting, under King Bela iv. of Hungary. 1One more foreign element the Teutonic mayperhaps be fitly mentioned here. In the twelfth cen-tury King Geisa n. of Hungary invited colonists fromFlanders and the Low Countries to assist him incultivating the waste part of his dominions and inresisting the attacks of the barbarian tribes.

His invitation met with an enthusiastic response, and Saxoni i f -I colonists,amongst the Saxon colonies thus founded was the city c. 1205.

of Hermannstadt. Andrew n. (1205-1233) continuedthis policy and summoned the Knights of S. John andother military orders to defend his kingdom againstthe Pechenegs and the Kuruani. Quarrels subsequentlyarose between the knights and King Andrew, and theformer were driven out of the country ; but thecolonists remained, and were the recipients of specialfavours from the Hungarian king. The Golden Bull,issued by Andrew n. in 1224, assigns important privi-leges to these Saxon colonists, recognising them as a The Goldenseparate nationality, with the Count of Hermannstadtat their head. They were allowed to occupy the landfrom the Broos to the Draas, to appoint their ownmagistrates and clergy, to be free from all taxes, and tohave a common seal bearing the inscription ' Sigillumprovinciae Cibiuiensis [province of Hermannstadt] adretinendam coronam.' In return they were to pay anannual tribute of 500 silver marks and to supply a levyof 500 men for home or 100 for foreign service.

1 MilaS.


20/96

8 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYIn 1291 Andrew m., the last king of the house of

Arpad, summoned an assembly, which the Saxonsattended under the leadership of their own nationalCount of Hermannstadt.

This assembly was also attended by the Szeklers andthe Hungarians, thus including the three nationalitieswhich for many centuries were to be regarded ascomposing the Hungarian kingdom. 1

1 Schwicker, pp. 9-10.


21/96

CHAPTER IITHE ROUMANIAN CHURCH IN TRANSYLVANIA

BEFORE THE UNIONIT will be seen from what has been said in theprevious chapter that the present Roumanian popula-tion of Transylvania may be traced to three principalsources.

Firstly, we have the original Daco-Roman colonists,who remained in Dacia after the withdrawal of theRoman legions in 274 A.D. ; secondly, the colonists whofollowed Constantine from Moesia to Dacia in 330 A.D. ;and thirdly, the colonists who, in the twelfth century,began to cross over the Carpathian mountains and tosettle in Transylvania and the low-lying plains ofHungary.Of these elements, the first two had been driven by

successive barbarian invasions into the mountains,where they maintained themselves, their language, andtheir customs, till the advent of more peaceful timesunder the early Hungarian kings of the house of Arpadpermitted them to descend from their mountainretreats and re-occupy the plains.

During their sojourn of many centuries in themountains, the Roumanians became mixed with theremnants of many other nationalities, which succes-


22/96

10 THE: ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYsively took refuge there when a fiercer or strongertribe drove them from the plains. Chief amongst suchtribes were the Slavs: and one result of this inter-mingling may be seen in the number of Slav wordswhich the Roumanian language contains.We may then date the re-appearance of the Rou-manians or Wallachians as they are now frequentlycalled in Transylvania and Hungary from about theeleventh or twelfth centuries, though they are indeedmentioned as early as the ninth century by the Russianchronicler Nestor, who speaks of them as the Valachi.

Their conversion is nowhere recorded, so that wemust assume that they had succeeded in preservingtheir Christian faith during these long centuries ofseclusion in their mountain homes. They reappearas a Christian people, professing an Eastern form ofChristianity, with their own bishops and priests.

This will be the more natural when we rememberthat Dacia owed most of its Christianity to thosecolonists who came over from Moesia in the wake ofConstantine in 330 A.D., and that after the division ofthe Roman Empire Dacia fell to the Eastern portion,and was assigned ecclesiastically to the jurisdiction ofConstantinople by the Council of Chalcedon.The Roumanians continued to recognise the jurisdic-

tion of Constantinople, which was exercised throughthe archbishopric of Ugro-Wallachia.1 The archi-

i The Archbishop of Wallachia had his see first at Tergovist, andlater on at Bucharest. His jurisdiction extended beyond Wallachia,and included the Roumanian bishoprics in Transylvania and Hungary.Hence the title of his province was Ugro-Wallachia.


23/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 11episcopal see of Transylvania itself was placed atWeissenburg,

1 the ancient Roman Apulum.It will be necessary here to turn aside for a momentand glance at the conversion of Hungary, where theadoption of Christianity in its western form was fraughtwith weighty consequences for the struggling Rou-manian Church.

In the year 948 A.D., two Hungarian princes fromTransylvania, named Eolusudes and Gyula or Gylas,were baptized at Constantinople, the Emperor Con-stantine vm. standing godfather to them. On theirreturn home Bolusudes reverted to paganism, andpersecuted his Christian subjects, but Gyula, whosucceeded him in the government of the province, re-mained loyal to Christianity. He brought with himfrom Constantinople a monk named Hierotheus, whomthe Patriarch Theophylact had consecrated to be bishopof the Roumanian church in Transylvania. Someconverts were made to Christianity, but as a wholeGyula's baptism was not followed up by any decisivemissionary effort on the part of the Eastern Church,and Hungary remained pagan, till missionaries fromthe West began to enter the country about 970 A.D.The severe defeat which the Emperor Otho HI. hadinflicted on the Hungarians in 955 A.D. had humbled

1 Apulum was destroyed by the barbarian invasion. On its ruinstose the town of Weissenburg (Alba Julia), where Ladislaus I. ofHungary (1078-1095) founded a bishopric. When Transylvania passedunder the dominion of Austria, Charles vi. (1711-1740) fortified Weis-senburg and renamed it Karlsburg, which name it continues to bear.The Roumanian archbishopric was placed at Weissenburg till theUnion. When revived it was translated to Hermannstadt.


24/96

1-2 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYtheir power and checked their marauding raids, thusrendering it possible for Christian bishops and prieststo cross over from Germany and begin preaching theGospel amongst them.

Their missionary labours were facilitated by thepresence in Hungary of many Christian captives, whowelcomed the missionaries gladly, so that, in 974 A.D.,Bishop Pilgrim of Passau was able to send an encourag-ing report to Pope Benedict on the success of theChristian missions.

In 993 A.D., Bishop Adalbert of Prague arrived inHungary, but he seems to have been discouraged bythe prevalence of paganism and of pagan practiceseven amongst professing Christians.The ruler of Hungary at that time was Duke Geisa(972-997), who is believed to have been baptized atConstantinople, and had married a daughter of theelder Gyula. She, like her father, was a Christianbelonging to the Eastern Church. But the professionof Christianity seems to have made but little differenceto Geisa's character, and he was completely tolerant ofpaganism in his dominions.

Adalbert, however, baptized Geisa's son, to whom hegave the name of Stephen, and who was broughtup under strict Christian influences and married aBavarian princess named Gisella.Stephen the first king of the house of Arpad suc-ceeded his father Geisa in 997 A.D., and his first carewas to promote Christianity throughout his dominions,either by force or persuasion, as occasion demanded.He was a devoted son of the Roman Church, and


25/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 13received the special blessing of the Pope, Sylvester IL,upon his efforts, together with the title of

'

ApostolicKing ' and the celebrated crown, which has been usedever since for the coronation of the kings of Hungary.Stephen's forcible method of promoting Christianityroused bitter opposition amongst his pagan subjects,particularly in the eastern parts of his dominions,where paganism was still powerful. A revolt brokeout in Transylvania in 1003 A.D., which was subduedby Stephen, who deprived Gyula the younger, hisbrother-in-law, of his dominions in Siebenburgen.

Gradually then though resisted at times by thepagan nobles, who could always command a following

Christianity became the religion of Hungary, and bythe time that the line of Arpad kings had becomeextinct with the death of Andrew in. in 1301 A.D.,Hungary was a Christianised country, and moreoverthoroughly loyal to the Roman See.

In the meanwhile the Roumanians who had left theirmountain homes had begun to form settlements roundFogaras, in the banat of Zewrin and in the voivodeshipof Marinaros.They did not at first find themselves harshly treated

by the Hungarians. They were not, it is true, recog-nised as a distinct nationality, like the Hungariansand the Saxon colonists who had been invited into thecountry by King Geisa I. (1141-1161), and to whomAndrew u. (1205-1235) had granted special privilegesin the Golden Bull, but they were allowed to settlewhere they chose and to preserve their own religion,customs, and laws. Most of them became serfs to the


26/96

14 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYHungarian and Saxon nobility, with the exception ofthe heads of their communities, who were calledKneazen or Knezes, and were regarded as forming akind of traditional nobility amongst the Roumanians.But by degrees, as the Roumanians increased in

numbers, the conditions of their serfdom becameharder, and we notice a growing hostility towardstheir religion on the part of the Roman CatholicChurch and clergy. The final separation of the Easternand Western Churches in the eleventh century naturallyincreased this hostility, since the Roumanian bishops,after some wavering, had definitely ranged themselveson the side of Constantinople. Besides the Metro-politan at Karlsburg, who received consecration fromthe Archbishop of Urgo-Wallachia, it appears that theRoumanians had originally bishops at Fogaras, Szilvas,Vad, Halmegy, Grosswardein, and in the county ofMarmaros.The Popes lost no opportunity to remind the Hun-

garian kingsof their duties in

reclaimingthese false

Christians, to whom the epithet 'schismatics' beginsto be applied. Thus, in 1234 A.D., Pope Gregory ix.writes as follows to King Bela iv. of Hungary withrespect to the Roumanian Christians :

' In the diocese of Cumania there are some people calledRoumanians, who, although they pass for Christians, do manythings which are contrary to the Christian name. For theydespise the Roman churches, and will not receive the sacra-ments from the Latin bishops of the Cumanians, but fromfalse Greek bishops, and many of the faithful Magyars,Germans, and others, who live in the kingdom of Hungary,and associate with these Roumanians, go over to them and


27/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 15receive the sacraments in the same way, to the great hurtof the faithful and the injury of the Christian faith. . . .In order that no soul may be injured by this difference inreligion, and to avoid the danger of the Roumanians, for wantof the sacraments, having recourse to the schismatical bishops,we command our bishop by letter to appoint a vicar . . . andsince you as a Catholic prince have sworn to bring toobedience all in your territories who do not belong to theRoman Church, and have promised by word of mouth thatthe aforesaid Roumanians should accept the bishop which theChurch gives them, we command you promising you absolu-tion of your sins not to permit any such schismatics in yourkingdom.'

Nevertheless the Roumanians continued steadfast intheir adherence to their own form of Christianity andin their allegiance to Constantinople.But the conditions of their serfdom became yearly

more onerous. Not only were the heads of theRoumanian communities the Knezes now compelledto servitude, but the clergy were also completely underthe control of the Magyar or Saxon landowner on whoseestate their fathers had been born. Poverty obligedthem to follow the humble callings of shepherd orfarm labourer in common with their people, nor couldthey be transferred to another parish unless theiroriginal overlord voluntarily resigned his claims overthem and allowed them to settle elsewhere. Theseand other oppressions led to a revolt of the Roumanianpeasantry in 1437, which was suppressed with someseverity, and the three leading races of Hungary theMagyars, Saxons, and Szeklers concluded an agree-ment at Kapolna on September 18, 1437, in which they


28/96

16 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYbound themselves to resist Roumanian pretensions andto maintain the existing recognition of their own threenationalities alone. The Roumanians thus remainedin their condition of serfdom ; but it must be concededthat in general the Hungarian kings did their bestto secure justice and equitable treatment for all theirsubjects, and seldom turned a deaf ear to the petitionswhich the Roumanian clergy and people presentedto them from time to time. One of the principalgrievances of the Roumanians lay in the exaction oftithes on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy. Thus,in 1479, we find the Roumanian Archbishop Joanniciuspetitioning Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, toremit these imposts, which lay heavily on the im-poverished Roumanians. The king assented to thearchbishop's petition, and issued two decrees in 1479and 1485 respectively, in which he ordered that notithes should be taken from the 'schismatics.' Hissuccessor, Ladislaus, confirmed this immunity by hisdecree of 1495, which forbade the taking of tithes from1 Serbs, Russians, Roumanians, and other schismaticsliving on Christian estates/ Again, in 1491, we findthis same King Ladislaus occupying himself with theecclesiastical affairs of the Roumanians at their ownrequest. Two wealthy Roumanians, named BalitzaYoda and Drag Mester, had founded a monastery dedi-cated to St. Michael in the Roumanian diocese ofMunkacs. Having endowed it with villages and landssufficient for its support, they repaired to Constantinople,where they begged the Patriarch Antonius to constituteit a Stauropegion, thus exempting it from the juris-


29/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 17diction of the Bishop of Munkacs. The Patriarchapproved the request, and appointed a monk namedPachomius to be the first abbot of the new monastery,while he granted to the monks the right of electingtheir own abbot in future.But Pachomius's successor, Ilarius, deemed it prudent

to secure the independence of his monastery fromepiscopal control by obtaining a royal confirmation ofthe privileges which had been granted by the Patriarch.For this purpose he appealed to King Ladislaus, whoissued a decree confirming the privileges in 1495. TheBishop of Munkacs, however, resented this interferencewith his authority, and endeavoured to appropriate therevenues of the monastery. Ilarius again appealed toLadislaus, who confirmed his original decree and main-tamed the independence of the monastery against thebishop.

Ladislaus was succeeded in 1516 by his young son,Louis II., in whose reign the greatest misfortunes over-whelmed Hungary.At the battle of Mohacs in 1516, the Hungarianarmy was utterly routed by the Turks under Solymanthe Magnificent. Louis lost his life, and Buda wasgiven over to pillage, while the country around, withits towns, villages, and churches was laid waste in alldirections. Solyman at length returned to Constanti-nople, laden with spoils from Hungary, while a largepart of the land remained till 1686 in Turkish hands.To add to these misfortunes, the Hungarian noblescould not agree on the best method of saving theircountry from further Turkish invasion. One party

B


30/96

18 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYdesired to offer the crown to Ferdinand of Austria,brother of the Emperor Charles v., and in thisthey were warmly supported by the Saxons. Theopposite party preferred a national dynasty, and electedJohn Zapolya, the Voivode of Transylvania, as King ofHungary. The result was a desolating civil war, whichlasted till 1538, when Ferdinand agreed to cede Tran-sylvania and part of Hungary, as far as the river Theiss,to John for his lifetime. Thus a temporary truce wasestablished till John's death in 1541, when his estatesshould by this agreement have passed to Ferdinandand the house of Hapsburg. The national party,however, proclaimed his little son, John SigismundZapolya, as king, and bought the support of the Turksby payment of a yearly tribute. Queen Isabella,Sigismund's mother, acted as regent, but an unfor-tunate quarrel with her leading minister, GeorgeMartinuzzi, Bishop of Grosswardein, led the latter tobetray Transylvania to Ferdinand. The savage conductof Ferdinand's troops, however, alienated even his ownsupporters from him, and, urged on by the Turks, thenational party succeeded in regaining their indepen-dence, and replacing Sigismund Zapolya on the throne,which he held till his death in 1571.

In his place another Hungarian magnate, StephenBathori, was elected ; but in 1575 he was presented withthe crown of Poland, whereupon he ceded the realgovernment of Transylvania to his brother, ChristopherBathori, while retaining a merely nominal overlordshipfor himself. His successor was Sigismund Bathori,who held the principality till 1605.


31/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 19The Roumanian Church in Transylvania suffered

much from the troubles, both political and religious,which passed over Hungary. Five archbishops occupiedthe Roumanian see of Weissenburg during this period :Barlaam I., 1537 ; Paul Thordasi, 1569 ; Genadiu i., 1580,Joan de Prislop, 1595-1599 ; and Theoctist, 1605-1609.1The spread of the Reformation caused great strife andconfusion in Transylvania as elsewhere. Merchantswho attended the fairs at Leipsic and other Germantowns brought back with them to Hermannstadt anaccount of Luther's teaching; and the new doctrinesspread rapidly, especially amongst the Saxons inTransylvania. Lutheranism became the prevailingform of Protestantism with the Saxons, while Calvinism,and, later on, Unitarianisin, won an immense numberof adherents amongst the Hungarians and Szeklers.John Zapolya, with many other Hungarian magnates,whose policy, as well as their religious views, inclinedthem to the defence of the ancient religion, did theirbest to stem the tide; but their efforts were for thetime unavailing. After John's death, his little sonSigisinund was brought up under strict Unitarian in-fluences, and became in after life a strict supporter ofthis creed.

Meanwhile, the Roumanians were striving to remainfaithful to their religion, but they suffered no littlefrom the attacks of both parties, who were equallyanxious, as opportunity offered, to compel them to

1 Schaguna mentions Stephen i. c. 1557. His name does not appearin Hurzumaki's list, but it is possible that one has dropped outbetween 1537 and 1569, as the interval is unusually long.


32/96

20 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYaccept either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.The Protestant propaganda was chiefly carried on bypreaching and popular Bible teaching, while the RomanChurch aimed more at simply winning over the higherRoumanian clergy, trusting that their flocks wouldfollow them. Their own Eastern Christianity was onlytolerated on sufferance, and they were constantly sub-jected to hardship and oppression in the exercise oftheir religion. It is therefore all the more pleasing tofind the Queen Regent, Isabella, in 1557, confirming theappointment of a Bishop Christopher to the Roumanianmonastery of Feldiod.John Sigismund Zapolya died on March 14, 1571,

and, as we have seen above, Stephen Bathori waselected as his successor.Stephen was a Protestant prince, and during his

reign the Diet of Transylvania passed some laws whichdealt rather severely with the Roumanian Church.The following articles are contained in Approb. GonslitRegni Transilv., 1575 A.D., Pars. I. Tit. viii.

Art. I.Art. I. deals first with the appointment of Roumanian

bishops. They are to be elected by the Roumanianclergy ; but their election must be entirely subject tothe approval of the prince, who may confirm or rejectit as he pleases.

Secondly, the article states that all Roumanianbishops and arch- priests when making visitations oftheir dioceses or districts are to confine themselvesentirely to their spiritual duties. They are not to


33/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 21engage in an}7 secular undertakings, to mingle inpolitics, or to impose on offenders any temporal punish-ments or fines.

Art. II.This article provides that any Roumanian clergy

coming from abroad to settle in Transylvania are topresent themselves first to the arch-priest of the dis-trict. The arch-priest or bishop must send them to befurther examined by the civil authorities of the countyor municipality, and the latter are to furnish the princewith a report concerning them as circumstances maydemand.

Art. III.This article deals with the obligations of the Rou-

manian clergy to their Hungarian or Saxon over-lords.It will be remembered that even the clergy stood in

the position of serfs, and were bound to remain on thelandholders' estates. They are ordered in this articleto pay a yearly tax proportionate to their incomes ; butthey are allowed to appeal to the civil authorities iftheir over-lords make excessive demands upon them.The claims which the overlord may make on the sonsof the clergy are also regulated by this article.

Art. IV.Art. IV. treats of Roumanian priests who commit

irregularities in celebrating marriages between personsof different religions, or between those who have beenimproperly betrothed, or those whose marriage wouldbe for any reason illegal.


34/96

22 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYIf the arch-priest does not punish such a priest

within five days of receiving an admonition from thecivil authorities to do so. he is to be deprived of hisrank.The priest is to be fined two hundred florins, and

may also be deprived by the bishop if the civil autho-rities desire it.

In addition to these articles we also find in Approb.Oonstit. Trans., Tit. ix. Art. i., that work is to be re-quired as usual of the Roumanians on their festivals.From the wording of the article it is evident that theyhad been in the habit of petitioning their over-lordsfor holidays on such days. In future they are not topresume to do so.

Tit. in. Art. ii. permits tithes to be taken from theRoumanians on wine, corn, vegetables, sheep, pigs, andbees.

Considering the poverty of the Roumanian serfs, itwill be readily understood that such taxation musthave pressed very heavily upon them, and kept themin a state of chronic indigence. 1

Stephen's successor in the principality, SigismundBathori, conceded some trifling alleviations in the lotof the Roumanian clergy at the request of the Metro-politan, Joan de Prislop, in 1595. Their general condi-tion remained unchanged, however, until

the electionof Gabriel Bathori to the throne of Transylvania.

Although in most respects a very bad prince, GabrielBathori showed pity and consideration towards theRoumanian people and their priesthood. In 1609 he

1 Schag., pp. 35-8.


35/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 23granted permission to the latter with the sanction oftheir bishop to settle in any place they pleased withtheir families, and without requiring to obtain theconsent of their over-lords. He also relieved themfrom the performance of their obligations to the terri-torial nobility, and from the payment of all duesexcept the customary yearly tax. 1

Gabriel Bathori was succeeded by Gabriel Bethlen,an earnest-minded man, who did much for the im-provement of his country. The Roumanian clergy inthe district of Fogaras, finding him thus well disposedtowards them, petitioned him, in 1624, for a remissionof tithes, such as they had formerly enjoyed underLadislaus n. and Matthias Corvinus. Gabriel grantedtheir petition so far as to remit all tithes on cattle andland produce.2Some further privileges were granted to the Rou-manian clergy and people by Gabriel's successor,George Rakoczy i., in 1638, at the request of theirMetropolitan, Genadiu n.But though the elective princes of Transylvania were

willing to make these concessions towards a materialimprovement in the status of the Roumanian clergy,they spared no efforts at the same time to win overthe Roumanian Church to Protestantism. With thisobject in view, catechisms and other doctrinal state-ments were issued from time to time to the Roumanianarchbishops and clergy with imperative orders to usethem only in the instruction of their flocks. It was

1 Lit. Priv. Gab. Bet., 1609; Hurz., p. 4.2 Lit. Priv. Gab. Bet., 1624 ; Hurz., p. 5.


36/96

24 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYhoped in this way to leaven the Roumanian Churchwith Protestant teaching through the medium of itsown pastors.The results for the most part were very unsuccessful.

Some, indeed, of the Roumanian bishops and clergywere strongly inclined towards Protestantism, thoughprobably more from the material benefits which itsadoption was likely to bring them than from any reallove or sympathy with its doctrines. But others heldfirmly to their traditional faith, and refused to haveanything to do with the Protestant catechisms, andencouraged their people to remain steadfast.

In 1638, during the reign of Prince George Rakoczy i.,Elias Joresti, a monk from Wallachia, was appointedArchbishop of Weissenburg (Karlsburg). He was aman of simple, austere life, and unswerving loyalty tothe orthodox faith, who set himself to combat thespread of Protestant doctrines in the RoumanianChurch, and proscribed the use of any books whichinculcated them. This soon brought him sharply intoconflict with George Rakoczy. Unfortunately, in thevisitation which he had made of the diocese under hischarge, he had found many abuses and irregularitieswhich it was necessary to check, as well as muchcovert Calvinism among the clergy.Many of the latter, who had secretly embraced Cal-

vinistic doctrines without openly apostatising from theRoumanian Church, were exempted by a special decreeof Prince Rakoczy from their obedience to the Arch-bishop of Weissenburg, except so far as the ProtestantSuperintendent, Stephen Gelei, should allow them to


37/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 25render it. Joresti's uncompromising attitude in thesematters had made him many enemies amongst themore worldly bishops and clergy, who were only tooready to assist Gelei in getting rid of so unpopular anarchbishop. At a Synod, held in 1643, Elias was con-demned, deprived of his see, and handed over to thesecular authorities for further punishment. In hisplace the Synod elected, at Rakoczy's wish, a priestnamed Stephen Simonowicz, who showed himself farmore pliant in his attitude towards the ProtestantChurch.With the royal patent confirming his appointment

as Archbishop of Weissenburg, Rakoczy transmittedto Stephen, on October 10, 1643, a long ' instruction/dealing minutely with matters of doctrine and practice.From this remarkable document we may see that thenew archbishop was expected to conform more closelyto the standard of a Protestant superintendent than tothat of an archbishop of the Orthodox Church.Among its most noteworthy provisions are the fol-

lowing :(1) Stephen is to make use exclusively of the re-

formed catechism supplied to him by the ProtestantChurch, and is to insist that his bishops and clergy useit too in all teaching given by them to the Roumanianpeople.

(2) Baptism is to be administered in the name ofthe Holy Trinity with water only, according to Christ'sinstitution. (Is this aimed at trine immersion, or atthe anointing with chrism which immediately followsbaptism in the Eastern Church ?)


38/96

26 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY(3) Holy Communion is to be administered in both

kinds (this must mean separately, since the EasternChurch does not allow Communion in one kind), andonly to adults of good moral life.

(4) Crosses and pictures in churches are not to beaccorded religious veneration, but only to be used asreminders of our Lord's life and death.

(5) Burials are to be conducted according to theCalvinist rite.

(6) Nobody, either priest or layman, is to be hinderedor dissuaded from joining the Reformed Church. Theyare to be treated with the same affection as the faithfuladherents of the orthodox faith.

(7) A synod is to be held yearly, which all theRoumanian clergy are to attend, but the decision ofany difficult points of dogma is to be submitted to theGeneral Superintendent of the Protestant Church.

(8) The superintendent is to have a vote in theelection or deposition of a proto-pope just as much asthe bishop, the members of his consistory court, andthe clergy of the district concerned.

(9) All decisions of the bishop's consistory court indisputes between the clergy must be referred finally tothe Protestant superintendent.

(10) A Roumanian priest may not marry or bury aHungarian or baptize their children. Only in the caseof a Roumanian marrying a Hungarian woman maythe Roumanian priest perform the ceremony.

It is difficult to see how Stephen reconciled theacceptance of such regulations with his position as


39/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 27archbishop. However he professed at least an outwardcompliance, and allowed the Protestant Confession tobe circulated and taught amongst his flock, though itsappearance in the Danubian provinces was the signalfor an outburst of horror and indignation.The catechism was repudiated by a Synod ofRoumanian bishops, held under the presidency of the

Metropolitan of Moldavia, Barlaam, who undertookto refute it in a pastoral letter which he published in1645. This energetic action on the part of theRoumanian bishops was of great value in checkingthe spread of Protestantism amongst their co-religion-ists in Transylvania. Stephen showed a scarcely lessculpable weakness and negligence to the true interestsof his church, when he consented, in 1651, to consecratea monk named Peter Parthenius to the see of Munkacs,despite his well-known tendencies towards RomanCatholicism. But the Metropolitanate of Stephen wasnot without some cheering features. The translationof the Psalms into Roumanian was accomplished in 1651,followed later on by the whole of the New Testament.

Indeed the 'instruction' sent by Rakoczy i. to Stephenat his consecration insisted strongly on the exclusiveuse of the vernacular in the services of the RoumanianChurch as well as in Bible reading and preaching. Itis to be feared, however, that Rakoczy's object wasnot so much the spiritual advancement of theRoumanian Church as its detachment from its sisterchurches in Greece and beyond the Danube, with aview to propagating Protestant teaching amongst itsmembers.


40/96

28 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYThat Rakoczy bore no love to the Roumanian Church

in itself may be gathered from the fact that when theRoumanians from a village named Gross Csergedpetitioned for leave to build themselves a church, heonly granted it on condition that the tithes should bepaid to the Saxon pastor of the parish.Stephen was succeeded in 1651 by Daniel, who only

held the see of Weissenburg till 1656, when he abdi-cated and fled to Wallachia. During his Metropolita-nate, George Rakoczy n., who had succeeded his fatheron the throne of Transylvania, had endeavoured to en-force Protestantism on the Roumanians in the countyof Marmarosch. To Daniel, however, succeeded oneof the strongest Metropolitans who ever occupied thesee of Weissenburg, namely Sabbas Brankovich, whosememory is justly venerated by all Roumanian church-men.He held the archbishopric from 1656-1680, during

all of which time he spared no efforts to improve thecondition of his clergy and people. He obtained fromPrince Achatius Barcsai in 1659, and from PrinceMichael Apafi in 1663 and 1673, decrees freeing theRoumanian clergy from the payment of the heavytithes and dues which had reduced them to such greatpoverty, and by compelling them to engage in manuallabour for their own support had prevented them fromdevoting themselves to the duties of their ministry.

These exemptions were as usual bitterly resented bythe Magyars and Saxons, who continued when possibleto enforce the payment of tithes as before. But Sabbasand his brother George Brankovich had made them-


41/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 29selves very useful to Apafi in conducting negotiationswith the Princes of Moldavia and Wallachia. Theywere able, consequently, to prevail on Apafi to enforcehis decrees as well as to induce the Danubian princesto use their good offices in behalf of their co-religionistsin Transylvania. In the meantime the Turks hadagain been over -running the principality, and hadburnt the Kouinanian cathedral and the bishop'sresidence at Weissenburg.Being unable to raise money to rebuild his cathedral

amongst the poverty-stricken Roumanians of Transyl-vania, Sabbas obtained leave from Apafi, in 1668, tomake a journey into Russia for the purpose of collect^ing funds for this object.On his return he found that his enemy, GeorgeTophaeus, the Superintendent of the Calvinist Church,had been endeavouring to undermine his authorityduring his absence by winning over some of theRoumanian proto-popes to the Protestant faith. Hehad also obtained a decree from Apafi which shouldprevent Sabbas from performing ordinations, fromexercising due jurisdiction over his clergy, and shouldplace him in a position of complete subordination tothe Protestant Church.By an energetic appeal to Apafi in 1675, Sabbas

succeeded in regaining his rights and maintaining theprivileges of his church for a while, but the hostility ofthe Protestant party continued, being really fosteredby the elective princes, whose sympathies naturallylay with their own religion and with the efforts madeto propagate it.


42/96

30 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYSabbas, moreover, by his wealth as well as by his

loyalty to the orthodox faith, had made himself un-popular amongst the disaffected Roumanian clergy,who saw in subserviency to Tophaeus and the Pro-testant Church a means of improving their materialposition.

In 1677, at the instigation of Tophaeus, two laymencame forward with a false accusation of immoral con-duct against their archbishop. He was arraignedbefore a diocesan Synod in 1680, which was composedof ninety-eight clerical and lay members, with Tophaeusas his principal accuser, was declared guilty and throwninto prison with his brother George, while all hisproperty the real object of attack was confiscated.George Brankovich succeeded in escaping from prison,and fled to Wallachia, where he besought the inter-vention of Prince Serban Cantacuzene on behalf ofhis unfortunate brother. The prince remonstratedvigorously with Apafi i., who, finding himself threatenedby internal foes, and fearing lest Serban should makecommon cause with them, consented to release Sabbasand restore to him his church and property. Thearchbishop, however, broken down by ill-health, oldage, and the harsh treatment to which he had beensubjected while in prison, with a view to inducing himto accept Protestantism, died soon after his release. 1

His successor, Joseph Budai, received consecrationfrom Theodosius, Metropolitan of Wallachia, at Bucha-rest, in 1680, but he seceded very shortly after to

1 Schag., pp. 41-45; Hurz., pp. 16-17.


43/96

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 31Protestantism, and signed the Helvetic Confession.1In 1687 Barlaam n. was elected to the vacant see,which he had only held a year, when the Transyl-vanians, weary of their national princes and theTurkish suzerainty, offered the principality to Leopold i.of Austria at the Diet of Fogaras in 1668.

Leopold had already driven out Apafi i. and hisTurkish supporters from Transylvania in 1686, andAustrian troops had occupied Klausenburg, Hermann-stadt, and Deva. The principality thus passed underthe house of Austria, whose rule it has acknowledgedever since.

1 Hurz., p. 9.


44/96

CHAPTER IIITHE UNION

THE acceptance of Austrian rule, which we recorded inthe last chapter, was destined to have far-reachingresults for the Orthodox Church in Transylvania andHungary.

Under the elective princes every effort had beenmade to win or coerce the Roumanians to adopt Pro-testantism ; under the Austrian dynasty the RomanCatholic Church regained much of its former ascend-ency in Hungary, and was not slow in endeavouringto bring the orthodox Roumanians within its fold.Many circumstances contributed towards the success ofthe movement, but its chief impetus must be soughtin the wretched conditions of life under which theRoumanians laboured.As we have seen above, the Roumanians were not

reckoned amongst the recognised nationalities ofHungary,

nor was the Greek faith accorded a recog-nised position on a level with Roman Catholicism,Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Unitarianism.

Socially the Roumanians were for the most partserfs, including even the clergy, and as such they weresubject to much oppression at the hands of the Hun-


45/96

THE UNION 33garian and Saxon nobility. The frequent efforts of theRoumanian clergy to escape the payment of tithes,though apparently successful, were often attendedby no practical result, as the nobility were powerfulenough to maintain the old state of things, despiteroyal edicts to the contrary. Both clergy and laitywere poor and ignorant, since it was very seldom thatthey could afford the means of education, and theirchildren were not received in the Roman Catholic orProtestant schools. It can easily be understood thenwhat great temptations from a material point of viewthere must have been to the Roumanians to adopt oneof the received religions. Such a step would at onceinvest them with all the liberties and privileges enjoyedby that body. But in the case of Protestantism therewere two powerful counteracting forces.The first of these was purely religious, and lay in the

fundamental difference between Protestantism and theGreek Church, which made the acceptance of the formerby a member of the latter essentially distasteful. Thesecond was racial, and as such appealed to one of themost permanent characteristics of life in south-easternEurope. Acceptance of the Protestant or Unitarianfaith meant for a Roumanian the practical surrender ofhis nationality, as with his new religion he wouldalmost certainly enrol himself in a Magyar or Saxoncommunity. This indeed did happen somewhat fre-quently amongst Roumanians of the upper class, bothclerical and lay. If for any good service a Roumanianwas ' ennobled ' by his prince, he found himself at oncein an entirely different society, whose life he could only

c


46/96

34 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYshare by becoming Magyarised or Saxonised as the casemight be. Occasionally he might perhaps personallyretain his race and religion, but his children, who wouldbe educated in Magyar or German schools, would cer-tainly lose their ancient faith and would no longer beregistered as Roumanians. In this way it happenedthat just those Roumanians who might have helped toraise their church and nation fell away from it, whilethe poor Roumanian peasants and serfs clung to itloyally.But the loss of those who should naturally have been

its leaders became an increased source of weaknesswhen the Roumanian Church found itself opposed byan active and carefully prepared propaganda. TheRoman Catholic Church was able to pursue a methodfar more likely to win favour in the eyes of the Rou-manians and especially of the Roumanian clergy. Sheproposed a ' Union ' between the Roumanian and RomanCatholic churches, in which the former should retainits own language, customs, liturgy, and ceremonies,together with its married priesthood, while publiclyacknowledging the four following indispensable points :(1) The supremacy of the Pope; (2) the Procession ofthe Spirit from the Father and the Son ; (3) the Per-missible use of unleavened bread ; (4) Purgatory.On accepting this

'

Union/ the Roumanian priests,from being in the position of mere serfs, burdened withheavy tithes, would at once be freed from the latterand would enjoy all the privileges of the RomanCatholic clergy, together with the right of educatingtheir sons at Roman Catholic schools and seminaries.


47/96

THE UNION 35The laity in a similar manner would obtain all the civilrights belonging to one of the 'recognised' religionsand nationalities, and would be eligible for all postsin the public service from which they had hithertobeen excluded. At the same time there would be nosacrifice of nationality, since the Roumanians of thisUniat church would be recognised as forming a dis-tinct nationality, and would not be required to mergethemselves in the Magyars. It can readily be under-stood what a tempting prospect now opened out beforethe oppressed and poverty-stricken Roumanians ; and anational party was soon formed amongst them, headedby the leading clergy, who openly advocated unionwith the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits andCardinal Kollonicz, Archbishop of Gran and Primate ofHungary, were unwearying in their efforts to promotethe union, while they received the warmest encourage-ment from the Emperor and the Court at Vienna.The Cardinal had already succeeded in 1692 inbringing over two hundred Roumanian parishes in thediocese of Munkacs to the Union. Nevertheless theproject encountered much opposition, not only amongstthe Roumanians who desired to remain true to theirancestral faith, but also from the Protestant party,which had no desire to see the Roumanians incor-porated in the Roman Catholic Church, and thusstrengthening its growing influence in Transylvania.Such was the condition of affairs on the death of theMetropolitan Barlaam, who had succeeded to the Arch-bishopric of Karlsburg in 1687, but had died within afew years of his accession to the see. He was a loyal


48/96

36 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYRoumanian and desirous of promoting the true interestsof his church, but was unable to do much towardsstemming the current which had now set in in favourof the proposed 'Union.' He was succeeded in 1692by a monk named Theophilus, whose father, SimonSzeremi, had been parish priest of a village in Tran-s}dvania. Theophilus had incurred the displeasure ofPrince Brankovich of Wallachia by serious misde-meanours, both in his private life and in his adminis-tration of the Roumanian Church. Eventually theprince threatened to demand his deposition unless heshowed real signs of amendment, while at the sametime he was menaced with further exposure by theProtestant nobles.1Thus pressed on all sides, Theophilus threw himselfinto the arms of Rome, and professed his willingness tofurther the cause of the Union. The Roman Catholicauthorities, and in particular the Jesuits, seized eagerlyupon the opportunity thus presented, and welcomedTheophilus warmly, adding to persuasive argumentspromises of further ecclesiastical promotion.

Theophilus at once set himself to win over the Rou-manian clergy to his views, and even circulated amongstthem a pamphlet which represented the Roumaniansas having belonged originally to the Roman CatholicChurch, so that the proposed Union would be nothingmore than a return to their own spiritual mother.As we have said above, the Roman claims were

reduced to four, of which by far the most, and indeed

i Hurz., p. 29.


49/96

THE UNION 37the only, practically important one was the recognitionof the Papal supremacy.

In order, however, to avoid the appearance of forcingRoman Catholicism upon the Roumanians, and also tosatisfy the claims of the other religions, a royal com-mission was appointed, consisting of four delegates, onefrom each of the ' received ' religions, who were com-missioned to give every Roumanian pope his choiceeither to accept one of the received religions or to abidein the Greek faith. But this apparent impartiality wascounteracted by secret orders from the Emperor, to theeffect that in reality the Roumanians were to be urgedto accept Roman Catholicism, and that no encourage-ment was to be given to the other religions. TheArchbishop Theophilus seconded the Emperor's effortseagerly, and persecuted any of his clergy who desired toavail themselves of this opportunity to embrace Pro-testantism. In consequence of the distress and con-fusion thus producedamongst the orthodox Roumanians,he summoned a Synod of his clergy at Karlsburg in1697, to discuss the question of the proposed Union.The Synod lasted from the beginning of February to

the 21st of March. At its first sitting Theophilus dweltat length on the hardships which the Roumanians hadendured at the hands of the national princes of Tran-sylvania. He pointed out in particular that the doctrinesof the church had been distorted by the circulationof Protestant manuals to the great injury of thefaithful.At the next sitting he went on to lay the question

of the proposed union with Rome before the Synod,


50/96

38 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYwhich viewed the matter favourably, and proceeded todeliberate on the necessary terms. It was eventuallyagreed to accept the four points put forward by Rome,while claiming the following concessions for the Rou-manian Church.

(1) The continued use of its own canon law, so far asit did not contradict the terms of Union ; (2) equal rightsfor the Roumanian priesthood and laity with those en-joyed by members of the Roman Catholic Church, andequal facilities for education ; (3) non-interference of thelaity in the affairs of the clergy ; and (4) due pecuniaryprovision for the maintenance of the Metropolitical see.These terms were embodied in an act which was signedby Theophilus

and twelve archdeacons, and was sub-mitted to the Emperor and the Primate of Hungary forconfirmation and approval. 1 The action of the Synodfound warm support at the Court of Vienna and amongstthe Roman Catholic clergy ; but it was far otherwise withsuch of the Roumanian clergy and laity as resentedthe idea of deserting their religion and repudiated theaction of their archbishop. They were .supported intheir resistance by the Protestants, and great confusionand bitterness prevailed, which was augmented by thedeath of Theophilus in July 1697.The see of Karlsburg remained vacant for seven

months, and was eventually filled in January 1698 bya monk named Athanasius, the son of a Roumanianparish priest.To quiet the unrest which the Synod of Karlsburg

1 Schag., pp. 63-66.


51/96

THE UNION 39had called forth amongst the Roumanians, and topromote the cause of the Union, the Emperor Leopold i.issued two decrees in April 1698. These confirmedthe result of the Synod, and emphasised the fact thatall orthodox Roumanian priests who acknowledged thepapal supremacy and the distinctive points of RomanCatholic dogma although adhering to the Greek rite

should at onceenjoy

all theprivileges

and libertiesof the Roman Catholic clergy. Those, on the otherhand, who elected to adhere to the Greek Churchwould remain in their present position and pay theusual taxes. 1 These imperial edicts were followed inJune by a solemn manifesto from the Primate ofHungary, Cardinal Kollonicz. In this manifesto, theCardinal set forth still more strongly the temporaladvantages in the way of privileges and legal protectionwhich the Roumanians and in particular the clergywould obtain by joining the Union. Not only, he says,will such a step procure them eternal felicity in thelife to come, but will also ensure them here the specialfavour and protection of the Emperor. They mayalways count on a favourable hearing in the ecclesi-astical and civil courts, and will find in himself and theEmperor willing friends and protectors. While theorthodox Roumanians were thus being alternatelyencouraged and coerced to join the Union by influencefrom outside, circumstances within the RoumanianChurch itself contributed towards the same result.Following the custom of his predecessors, the newly

1 Hurz., pp. 30-31.


52/96

40 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYelected Metropolitan Athanasius had gone to Bucharestfor his consecration in January 1698.The Metropolitan of Wallachia at that time was one

Theodosius, who perhaps had heard reports of thedoubtful orthodoxy of Athanasius and of the threateneddefection of the Roumanian Church in Transylvania.At any rate he did his best to bind Athanasius to theorthodox faith and to remind him of his solemnresponsibilities as Metropolitan. But Athanasius wasevidently a thoroughly untrustworthy man. Althoughhe must have decided in his own mind to accept theUnion on his return to Transylvania, yet he took thecustomary oath which was administered to all Arch-bishops of Karlsburg at their consecration by theMetropolitans of Wallachia. After the recitation of theNicene Creed, the oath runs as follows :

'Further, I also acknowledge and accept the seven holyCouncils which met to settle the principles of the Christianfaith. I profess that I will heartily accept and observe allthe canons and decrees of those holy Fathers who attendedthe Councils and all the principles and doctrines which werelaid down by those holy Fathers at those times. I professmoreover that I will maintain the peace of the Church, andwill never do anything contrary thereto so long as I live, butwill in all things submit myself to the wholesome doctrineof my very reverend Lord and Prince of the Church in allUgro-Wallachia, Lord Theodosius, and I do vow with all mymind that I will feed the spiritual nock committed to mycharge in godly love and fear, according to the holy canonsand decrees, and so far as in me lies will keep myself from allwrong and malicious wickedness ; further, I profess that I willmaintain intact and undisturbed all property which the seeof Ugro-Wallachia possesses within my diocese. I, Athanasius,


53/96

THE UNION 41by the grace of God called to the holy episcopate of thecountry of Siebenburgen, have signed here with my ownhand.' 1

It so happened that the Patriarch of Jerusalem,Dositheus, was at Bucharest at this time, and hetook the opportunity of addressing an instruction toAthanasius on the duties and responsibilities of hischarge. In this instruction, which is of considerablelength, Dositheus shows a very just appreciation of theneeds of the Church and of the character which herMetropolitan should bear. He begins by emphasisingthe necessity for a close adherence to the decrees andcanons of the seven (Ecumenical Councils and of theancient Fathers. At the same time he warns Athanasiusand his flock to submit themselves duly to the civilpowers, as being in accordance with ' the most clearwarrant of Scripture.' He then proceeds to dwell onthe importance of preaching, which is never to beomitted on Sundays and festivals, but which shouldalso take place at other times. And this preaching, heobserves, is to be given in the vulgar tongue; eitherServian, Russian, or Roumanian, as the needs of thecongregation require, while all exposition of the HolyScriptures is to follow the lines laid down by theFathers. But when he comes to dwell, a little later on(Art. 5), upon the celebration of the Liturgy and theoffices of the Church, he directs distinctly that they areonly to be performed in Greek or Slavonic, and not inthe Roumanian tongue. Some writers see in this a

1 Schag., pp. 72-73.


54/96

42 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYdesire on the part of Dositheus to maintain thesupremacy of the Greek Patriarchate over the Rou-manian Church in Transylvania, and to prevent itsacquiring complete independence with the growth ofthe national spirit.1 But Schaguna considers that theinjunction was only due to the fact that at this timethere was no authorised translation of the Liturgy andservice books into Roumanian.2 This is the morelikely because in the very next article Dositheus directsthat the Gospel at the Liturgy is to be read in Slavonicor Roumanian, as necessity requires. We have seenthat the New Testament was translated into Roumanianduring the Metropolitanate of Simonowich. It is worthnoticing in this connection that Dositheus speaks of adaily celebration of the Liturgy.

Proceeding with his instruction, Dositheus givescareful rules in Arts. 7-12 for the due and properperformance of the Sacraments, and lays special stresson Communion in both kinds when dealing with thesubject of the Liturgy. In speaking of confession, headmonishes Athanasius to make careful choice ofsuitable priests, both secular and religious, as confessors,and to do his utmost to secure that the faithful cometo confession four times a year, or at the very leastbefore Easter. He directs that prayer-oil (extremeunction) is to be administered by not less than twopriests, and if possible by seven, and also that it is tobe administered to those who are spiritually as well asbodily sick. After some further directions connectedwith requiem Masses, and with the due supply of

1 Hurz., p. 34; Slav., p. 80. 2 Schag., p. 76, note.


55/96

THE UNION 43ornaments and utensils for the Church, he goes on tospeak of the veneration due to icons, to the Book of theGospels, and to the Holy Cross, and of the position ofthe Saints as intercessors with Christ on our behalf.He then finishes this part of his instruction withdwelling on the necessity of good works as an indis-pensable accompaniment to orthodox faith.

Article 20 is of special importance, because it regu-lates the relationship between the Roumanian Churchin Transylvania and the patriarchal see of Constanti-nople. Athanasius is directed in this article to holda general Synod twice or at least once a year, at whichall difficulties or disputes which have arisen in theMetropolitanate may be discussed. But if any pointpresents special difficulty and cannot be settled by theSynod, it is to be referred to the Metropolitan of Ugro-Wallachia as Exarch of the Patriarchal throne. Incase the question should prove beyond the competencyof the Exarch to decide, it must be referred finally tothe Patriarch of Constantinople and his council, inaccordance with the canons of the Council of Chalcedon.Article 21 reiterates the importance of adhering closelyto the doctrines and sacraments of the Eastern Churchand of teaching the orthodox faith carefully. Forthis purpose Dositheus recommends the use of a bookcalled the Orthodox Confession, which had latelybeen translated into Roumanian, only stipulating thatin all cases of doubtful translation the Greek textshould be carefully consulted. The last Article (22)exhorts Athanasius to personal purity of life, to theavoidance of all simoniacal practices, which it must


56/96

44 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYbe feared were growing rife, and to single-hearteddevotion to the solemn duties of his office. The in-struction closes by commending him to the mercy andfavour of Jesus Christ, and is signed as follows : ' Givenat Bucharest, in the month of January 1698. Dosi-theus, by the grace of God, Patriarch of the holy cityJerusalem, to the humble Athanasius, Bishop of thecountry of Siebenburgen ' (Transylvania). 1 Such wasthe substance of the instruction given by the PatriarchDositheus to Athanasius at his consecration, but towhich unhappily he was far from faithful, as circum-stances were soon to show. On his return to Tran-sylvania he summoned a Synod of clergy and laity atKarlsburg,

at which the advantages of the Union wereearnestly pressed. Of the clergy, some were genuinelyin favour of the step, others, perhaps the greater part,were over-persuaded or intimidated. The lay deputieshad probably but little real knowledge of the pointsin dispute.2

1Schag. , pp. 73-82 ; quoted from the ancient Chronicle of Ordina-tions of the Metropolitans of Ugro-Wallachia.

2 Hurzumaki gives the date of the Act of Union as October 7,1698. Schaguna, on the contrary, dates it September 5, 1700. It isdifficult to reconcile the discrepancy. Schaguna mentions the generalassembly which began on July 7, 1698, but asserts that nothingdefinite was done. He seems to imply that matters dragged on fromthat date till the Act of Union was finally signed in September 1700.The point chiefly in favour of Schaguna's date is the presentation oflands to the Metropolitanate of Karlsburg by the Prince of Wallachia,in June 1700. The prince would scarcely have made such a grant ifthe Metropolitan had already seceded from the Orthodox Church,followed by a large proportion of his flock. It is also difficult tounderstand the various rescripts issued by the Emperor between 1698and 1701 if the Union was already consummated and the OrthodoxRoumanian Church regarded as non-existent. I have therefore pre-ferred to follow Schaguna's dates in this matter.


57/96

THE UNION 45As a result of this conference, it was reported to the

Government that the Roumanians had accepted theproposed union. Consequently in the beginning ofthe following year (February 16, 1699), the Emperorissued a royal diploma, confirming all the privilegesand immunities which had been promised to the Uniats,both clergy and laity. This diploma was countersignedby Cardinal Kollonicz.1 But the discontent amongstthose Roumanians who were opposed to the Unionwas only increased by this measure, while the variousProtestant denominations were equally exasperated byit. The Emperor deemed it wise to issue a furtherrescript on August 6, 1699, reiterating the fact thatthe Roumanians were perfectly free to adopt whicheverof the ' received ' religions they pleased or to adhereto their own, with, of course, its attendant disabilities.This rescript was followed by another on September 26,1699, in which the terms of union between the Rou-manians and the Roman Catholic Church were setforth in a manner so much more favourable to thelatter than the former that Athanasius and such ofhis clergy who desired the union were constrained toprotest, in the fear that after all they would not gainmuch by their apostacy.The protest was favourably received at Vienna, and

the fears of the Roumanians were allayed by anotherimperial rescript, issued on December 12, 1699. 2 So

1 Schag., pp. 83-87.2 Hurzumaki dates this rescript December 22, 1701. The intervalwould seem too long. For the full text of the rescript, see Schaguna,

pp. 83-94.


58/96

46 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYmatters dragged on through the early months of 1700.Athanasius, and those of his clergy who shared hispolicy, found it no easy matter to persuade or evento coerce the rest of the clergy, and especially the laity,to follow them in concluding the union with Rome.As late as June 13th of this year we find the Princeof Wallachia, John Constantine Bassarab, making apresent of estates in Wallachia to the see of Karls-burg, and addressing Athanasius and his Synod interms of affectionate reverence. 1But Athanasius was determined to carry through

his purpose, and on September 4, 1700, he sum-moned a great Synod at Karlsburg. This Synod wasattended by all the clergy and arch-priests of thediocese, together with three lay deputies from eachparish. It met at the monastery of the Holy Trinity,and Athanasius began the proceedings by setting forthall the advantages to be derived from union with Rome.He encountered much opposition on the part of thelaity from the districts of Hunyad, Hermannstadt, andKronstadt. They allowed themselves to be overper-suaded, however, by the clergy and such of the laityas were favourable to the project, and at the nextsitting the union was formally decided upon. It wasresolved to accept the four points which the RomanCatholic Church put forward, while demanding onthe Roumanian side that the ritual and discipline ofthe Roumanian Church should remain untouched, sofar as it did not conflict with the Roman Catholic faith.

1 Schag. , p. 95.


59/96

THE^UNION 47The formal Act of Union, which was signed on

September 5, 1700, runs as follows :' We, the undersigned, bishop, arch-priests, and clergy of

the Roumanian Church in Siebenburgen (Transylvania) andthe adjoining districts, do hereby announce and declare toall whom it may concern, and especially to the Estates ofSiebenburgen, that we, having considered the fleeting un-certainties of human life and the immortality of the soul,which must be considered before all else, have of our ownfree will, and out of a desire for the honour of the DivineName, entered into union with the Roman Catholic Church.We do accept, acknowledge, and believe all that she accepts,acknowledges, and believes, and in particular those fourpoints on which we have been divided hitherto, and whichwere laid before us by the gracious decree and diploma ofHis Imperial Majesty and of his Eminence the Archbishop,and we desire in consequence to enjoy all the rights andprivileges which the clergy of our holy Mother the Churchdo enjoy in accordance with the laws of our former graciousKings of Hungary. Similarly we desire, in virtue of theabove-mentioned decree of his Majesty and of his Eminencethe archbishop, to be reckoned members henceforward ofthe same Church. For the greater confirmation and attesta-tion of which we have signed this manifesto with our signa-ture and sealed it with the seal of the monastery of AlbaJulia, and with our customary seal.Alba Julia (Karlsburg), Sept. 5, 1700.The Metropolitan Athanasius.Here are said to have followed the signatures of

fifty-four arch-priests and one thousand five hundredand sixty- three priests ; but the number of thosewho signed is disputed, and it seems certain that thelaity did not sign at all. Subsequent history makes itevident that the Union was very unpopular with alarge number of the Roumanians, and was in fact


60/96

48 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYrepudiated by them, so that from this time onwardsthere have been two Roumanian churches in Austria,the United or Greek Catholic and the non-United orGreek Orthodox. The latter represents the old nationalRoumanian Church in Hungary and Transylvania,which has always remained loyal to the orthodox faithwhich it learned from Constantinople in the earlycenturies of Christianity. The Act of Union was natur-ally received with great rejoicing in Vienna, whitherAthanasius was summoned to receive the congratula-tions of the Emperor in March 1700. 1 He was ap-pointed bishop of the newly-constituted Uniat Church,and was consecrated to that office in the Church ofS. Anne according to the Roman rite. In addition toan imperial diploma confirming his consecration inmost flattering terms, the Emperor decorated him witha golden chain and cross, presented him with a pictureof himself, and appointed him to be one of the imperialcouncillors. Athanasius then returned to Karlsburg,where his supporters and all those who favoured theUnion had prepared for him a magnificent reception.

It was further stipulated that he should receive a yearlysalary of four thousand florins from the royal treasury.Thus Athanasius appeared to have obtained the objectfor which he and his predecessor, Theophilus, had beenstriving, although at the cost of rending the RoumanianChurch in twain and detaching a considerable portionof the Roumanians from their hereditary allegiance toConstantinople and the orthodox Greek faith.

1 Schag. , pp. 103-4 ; Hurz. , p. 56.


61/96

THE UNION 49As a matter of fact the immediate results of the

Union by no means corresponded with the sanguineexpectations which its promoters had entertained. Thenew Uniat Church found itself subordinated in everyparticular to the Primate of Hungary, while all itsdeliberations had to be attended and guided by aRoman Catholic theologian specially appointed for thispurpose, and called the 'causarurn generalis auditor.'So great indeed was the mistrust entertained by theRoman Catholic authorities of the fidelity of the Uniatbishop and his flock that he was forbidden to corre-spond with the Prince of Wallachia or with any Greekor Servian Patriarch. 1

On the other hand the Austrian Government founditself unable to fulfil its pledges of giving equal civiland social rights to the Roumanians, owing to theintense jealousy of the Magyars and Saxons. Thelatter bitterly resented the liberties granted to theUniat Roumanians, and in particular their claim torepresentation in the Diet. These disappointmentsbrought with them such great discontent, that by 1730most of the laity had seceded from the Union, and itis probable that the clergy would have followed suit,and the whole movement might have collapsed, had itnot been that just at this juncture Pataki, the GreekCatholic bishop, died, and was succeeded by InnocentKlein, a man of remarkable energy and force of char-acter. He at once perceived that if the Uniat Churchwas to endure it must represent the rallying point for

1 Hurz. , p. 54.D


62/96

50 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYRoumanian nationalism, and must be as independentas

possibleof all external authority. To this object headdressed himself indefatigably ; he succeeded in gain-

ing a seat in the Diet, and obtained, in 1743, the passingof a law which gave equal rights to the Uniat Rouma-nians with those enjoyed by the Magyars and Saxons.At the same time he promoted the educational welfareof his people by every means in his power, and it wasdue to his efforts that a second Greek Catholic bishopricwas established at Grosswardein in 1748. His ceaselessactivity made him an object of special dislike to theMagyars and Germans, and in 1768 they obtained hisdeposition and banishment from the authorities atRome. His successor, Petru Aaron, was a moremoderate man, but he continued to work on the linesof his zealous predecessor, and established at Blasen-dorf which had now become the seat of the Uniatbishopric a seminary for priests, schools, and a print-ing press. Thus the growth and national life of theUniat Roumanian Church was steadily fostered by itsadherents, till in 1850 when Bishop Schaguna beganto work actively for the reconstitution of the orthodoxRoumanian Church Rome granted all that it hadwithheld hitherto.The see of Blasendorf was raised to the rank of a

Metropolitanate, two new bishoprics were granted atLugos and Samos-Ujvar, and all four bishoprics wereplaced under the jurisdiction of the Uniat Metro-politan.1

1 Slav., pp. 82-89,-"fc^of

. *i


63/96

CHAPTER IV1700-1783

THE establishment of the Uniat Church left the ortho-dox Roumanians who adhered to their old religion in adeplorable condition.

Their existence was not formally recognised by thestate at all, since by the Act of Union all Roumanianswere supposed to belong to the Uniat Church, andthose who refused to join the Union, or subsequentlyfell away from it, were liable to be persecuted asschismatics. The orthodox see of Karlsburg becamefor a time the residence of the Uniat bishop, most ofthe parish churches were handed over to the Uniats,and all Roumanians were compelled to support theUniat priests.

Nevertheless a large proportion of the Roumanians,especially the laity, clung to the orthodox faith, andsought the consolations of religion wherever they couldobtain them.Some went to Bucharest or Rimnik in Wallachia,

others to Suczava, on the borders of Moldavia, whichis still a place of pilgrimage for Roumanians fromTransylvania, owing to the preservation there of therelics of S. John of Suczava.

51


64/96

52 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYOthers again had recourse to the Servian priests

belonging to the newly-established orthodox Metro-politanate of Karlowitz.The hierarchy of the Uniat Church showed itself

very hostile to all Roumanians but especially to theclergy who remained outside the Union, and in thisattitude they were at first warmly supported by theState. During a vacancy in the Uniat see, whichoccurred in 1728, a Synod was held at Klausenburgunder the Rector of the Jesuits, at which it was resolvedthat all arch-priests, assisted by their clergy, shouldhold courts in their respective districts and report tothe Rector any Roumanians who fell away from theUnion. Further, the Synod decided to prohibit allmonks from administering the Sacraments or preach-ing, and to petition the Diet to expel them from thecountry.

This measure was doubtless dictated by the factthat the monasteries formed strongholds for the ortho-dox faith, and also provided the people with the meansof grace which they could no longer obtain in theirparish churches. Another decision of this same Synodprohibited parents from sending their children toschisrnatical or heretical i.e. orthodox schools underpayment of a considerable fine for each offence. Thesemeasures were followed by others of a curiously op-pressive character. Any Roumanian who desired tosecede from the Union to his original faith was sub-jected to a six weeks' examination at the hands of theUniat priest, and if he or she was found during thatinterval to have attended an orthodox church the


65/96

1700-1783 53

period was extended for another six weeks. Somepriests in the district of Hermannstadt were deprivedby the secular authorities for having ministered tosome gipsies living in the neighbourhood. Anotherpriest from Hatzeg was similarly deprived, and givena month's imprisonment for exercising his callingamongst the Uniats. Especially hard was the case ofan earnest orthodox priest named John Molnar, whostrove to raise the spiritual condition of his people bygoing about the county of Marmaros, and preaching atthe village fairs. He was denounced by the Union tothe civil authorities, who imprisoned him and trans-ported him to Blasendorf. Here he was unlawfullydegraded, and his head was shorn, so that he enjoyedever after the nickname of John the Shaven. Onbeing released .from prison, and returning to his ownnative village of Pogaceva, near Thorda, he was mostenthusiastically received by his people, who flockedaround him from all parts. This aroused the indigna-tion of the authorities against him,and he was again com-mitted to prison, first in the castle of Maros Vasarhelyand then in Vienna. Eventually the charges againsthim as a disturber of the peace were dismissed, and hewas released for the second time ; but finding that thehatred of his old enemies was still as active as ever hewithdrew to the Banat, where he ended his life.About this time the orthodox Roumanians werecheered by a visit from a devout monk namedBessarion, who, having spent some time on MountAthos and at Jerusalem, was desirous of visiting theorthodox monasteries in Transylvania and Hungary.


66/96

54 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYFor this purpose he obtained a letter of commendationfrom the Servian Metropolitan of Karlowitz, ArseniusJoannovics, and was received everywhere with affectionand reverence by the Roumanians. The Government,however, regarded him with considerable mistrust,fearing lest his influence should still further dissuadethe Roumanians from joining or adhering to theUnion. 1At this time there were still numerous Roumanian

monasteries in Transylvania, of which the principalmay be mentioned here. On the river Bistra stood thelarge monastery of Deda, about a quarter of a milefrom the village of the same name.

It contained many monks, and possessed a very finestone church, the ruins of which may still be seen,while the site of the altar can be traced quite plainly.Many of the pictures, including one of the BlessedVirgin Mary to whom the church was dedicated nowadorn the parish church of Deda, whither they wereremoved when the monastery was destroyed and themonks driven out, some two hundred years ago.Another monastery at Prislopu, near Hatzeg, was

founded by a daughter of one of the Wallachian princes,between 1560 and 1580. Near Klausenburg was themonastery of Szamosfalva. It was built of wood, andwas still in existence at the end of the eighteenthcentury, being destroyed during the reign of theEmperor Joseph n. Even after part of the monasticbuildings had been removed and utilised in building

1 The following particulars have-been taken almost as they standfrom Schaguna, pp. 51-56.


67/96

1700-1783 55

the parish church of Szarnosfalva, the monastic churchwas still used for requiem Masses.Schaguna, in his history, mentions a very old manfrom the village of Szamosfalva, who could recollect themonastery as it stood deep in the forest to the south ofthe village, and who, as a boy, had waited upon thelast monk who lived there. The pious monk made hisbed of leaves, and used a bare board for his pillow.Another important monastery was that of Obersambata,which possessed a specially fine church, built partiallyat the expense of Prince Constantine Brankovich ofWallachia. The church was beautifully painted in1767; and although now it is in a ruinous condition,many of the mural paintings of the Saints remain, andhave retained all their vivid colouring All along thefoot of the Fogaras mountains, in the south of Transyl-vania, lay numerous small monasteries and cells forsingle monks, but they were mostly destroyed forpolitical reasons about 1760, and their property wasconfiscated. The destruction and decay of thesemonasteries constituted another hindrance to the de-velopment of the spiritual life of the orthodox Rou-manians. Yet they struggled on bravely against theirdifficulties till the accession of Maria Theresa to theAustrian throne brought some alleviation in their con-dition. It was becoming increasingly difficult to treatthe orthodox Roumanians in Transylvania who nownumbered 124,000 families as non-existent, or asbelonging by a fiction to the Union, and their constantpetitions for proper spiritual oversight could no longerbe safely disregarded. The question thus became a


68/96

56 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARYpressing one, whether or not a bishop should beappointed for the non-united Roumanians, and theirexistence thus legally recognised.

Maria Theresa was strongly urged by her chancellor,Kaunitz, in 1768. to grant the appointment of a bishop.He presented her with a memorandum in favour of theRoumanians, and pointed out that the continued refusalof their request might be followed by disturbances andrevolts which would be specially disastrous to thecountry at that time.The Queen did not im

History of Hermannstadt

Documents

Transcript of History of Hermannstadt