INFORMATION BULLETIN

The Legacy of Three Anniversaries

1998 was a year in which the Romanians and all those of Romanian descent, in blood, in spirit or in both, remembered three important events of their past: lancu’s Revolution of 1848, the unification of all Romanians in one national state, and the Dedication of “Vatra Romanească”, the headquarters of The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. Consequently, it was not a surprise that the 1998 Congress of the Episcopate was set under this triple remembrance. Again, that choice would not surprise because, above and beyond the details of the historical circumstances, those three events share a number of common features among whom the most important are: the will to promote an identity, the will to promote a spirituality, the will to be free. And those three features were not independent from one another, but intermingled, inseparable, and self-supporting. In order to explain better the way in which those three events, 1848, 1918, and 1938 defined and built a mentality and an attitude with dramatic consequence, it is necessary to summarize the historical circumstances.

In 1848, Europe was entirely engulfed by the flames of popular revolt. The nations ofEurope were tired of the feudal order maintained after the Vienna Congress (1815) and were seeking freedom and equal rights for all. The popular revolt started in France but soon spread to Italy, Germany, and the Austrian Empire. The national uprising spread in the Romanian countries (Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia) as well. It should be emphasized that the national uprising in the Romanian countries had deep historical roots and causes and was not an imitation of what was going on in the rest of Europe, or, as the historian Nicolae Balcescu pointed out in those very days, the Romanian revolution of 1848 was not … “a phenomenon without a past or a future but was caused by eighteen centuries of toil and suffering …” The Romanian revolution (lancu’s Revolution) had a lasting impact on the Romanian history and it was then that the fight for political unification started.

In those days, Transylvania was part of the Austrian Empire. It was a “principality” of that empire, and the Emperor in Vienna was its “Archduke.” In those days, like today and throughout all of its history, the Romanians represent the overwhelming majority of Transylvania’s population (roughly 70%). However, according to the feudal order, the Romanians were oppressed and they were not recognized as a “legal” nation. The main oppressors were the Hungarian nobles, the landowners. The Romanians’ discontent assumed different forms, sometimes violent. The revolt led by Horia was by far the best known and with the most clear and articulate program. From this fight of the Romanian peasants, the future program of the Romanians from Transylvania emerged. That program was a popular movement, not based on any criteria other that the will of the nation for ethnic, economic, and religious rights. It has to be remembered that the entire Romanian population of Transylvania was oppressed and as such the unity of their purpose and goal was found easily. When a class of educated and dedicated Romanian intellectuals took the lead of the movement and drafted a coherent program of action, unity was obtained. This happened toward the middle of the nineteenth century, and its leaders were Bishop Andrei Şaguna, Simion Barnaţiu, Alexandru Papiu Ilarion, August Treboniu Laurian, Timotei Cipariu, loan Buteanu, and Avram Iancu.

The 1848 revolution evolved in conjunction and most against the Hungarian revolution of the same time. It is necessary to emphasize that this antagonism was not about tribal chauvinism or fanatical nationalism, but about two different approaches and two different programs impossible to reconcile.

The Hungarian revolutionists, lead by Kossuth, Deak, Petoefy, Andrassy and others wanted to recreate the rather phantomatic “realm” of St. Stephen (the founder of the Hungarian feudal state). Theoretically, they envisioned a democratic state but, in fact, they were seeking such rights only for the Hungarians (who were a minority in that realm). No such rights were envisioned for the majority of the population: Germans, Romanians, Serbians, Croats, and Slovaks. The cornerstone of the plan was Transylvania. The Hungarians were very aware that such a scheme was against the Romanians but they pressed the project anyhow. On the other hand, the Romanians from Transylvania rightly pointed out that Transylvania was a historical province with a distinct identity, and that it should remain an autonomous province (with a diet or parliament) in which each ethnic group should be represented according to its percentage of the provincial population. The Romanians were insistent on the abolition of the feudal system and the implementation of a minimal social and economic equality. It is worth mentioning that the Romanian program was very moderate and tried to accommodate as much as possible the Hungarian demands. Only when confronted with the irrational and fanatic Hungarian intransigence did the Romanians become more radical and finally resolve to defend their rights with arms.

Another crucial difference, which had not yet been made an issue, existed between the programs. The Hungarians were fundamentally anticlerical and secularists. That was almost natural as their respective denominations (Catholic, etc.) were part of and beneficiaries of the feudal order. Conversely, the Romanians were united and to a great extent lead by their religious leaders. The Romanian priests and bishops (all Orthodox and to a much smaller degree, the Uniates) were oppressed in the same manner like the members of the respective flocks and in some instances even harsher, as they were the leaders. The bottom line was that the two programs were antagonistic, and soon violent conflicts erupted between their respective supporters.

In March of 1848, ignoring the protests of the Romanians, and now with the Germans in Transylvania who had joined the cause, the Hungarians proclaimed the “union” of Tran-sylvania with Hungary. To protest such an absurd decision and to proclaim their own program, a Great National As sembly was convened in May, 1848 in Blaj. More than 40,000 people attended the Assembly (chaired by the two Romanian Bishops). The program was determined but moderate and rational. It proposed an autonomous Transylvania and the abolition of serfdom. It also adopted a petition which contained sixteen points (independence for the Romanian nation with the right to be represented in the country’s legislative body in proportion with its number, the right to use the Romanian language in legislation, abolition of the feudal privileges, etc.) and which became the program of the Romanian revolution. One of the points was of independence for the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania which, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, was persecuted and subordinated canonically to the Serbian Bishops. To emphasize the importance of this request, a special delegation, lead by the Orthodox Bishop and leader of the Romanians, Andrei Saguna, was sent to Vienna to try to obtain the understanding and help of the Imperial court. The Austrian Emperor decided to ignore the Romanians and more than that sanctioned the “unification” of Transylvania with Hungary and advised the Romanians to address their problems directly to the Hungarian government (that was to those who were against them). That decision of an incompetent Emperor had grave consequences. First of all, the Emperor did not have the authority to change the constitutional order of the empire. In fact, he was the one who was supposed to defend this order. In the meantime, he was also supposed to take care of the petitions addressed to him. In fact, by that decision, Emperor Ferdinand opened a Pandora’s box that would result eventually in the dissolution of the Empire. In that instance, the Romanians realized that nothing good would come from Vienna. The Hungarian revolutionists rightly considered the decision of the Emperor as a “green light” and consequently started to arrest and terrorize the Romanians. Under such circumstances, the Romanian National Committee from Sibiu convened a new National Assembly in Blaj in September 1848. Over 20,000 people, most of them “Moţi” from the Western Mountains showed up, and under the direct orders of Avram lancu. They were organized by lancu in “legions” under the command of his lieutenants. In the meantime, a new commission was appointed to negotiate with the Hungarians. Avram lancu was very skeptical about those negotiations and said, “Gentlemen, proceed, but I am heading for the mountains to make revolution.” He was right, because the negotiations resulted in nothing. In the meantime, lancu’s people removed the Hungarian authorities and created a free region in the heart of Transylvania. All the attempts of the Hungarians to conquer that region failed. Only in 1849, Avram Iancu’s army laid down its arms and the Austrian authorities were reinstalled. In fact, after 1849, those authorities proved their ingratitude and rewarded the Romanian fight with nothing. However, the independence of the Romanian Orthodox Church from Transylvania was recognized, and Andrei Baron de Şaguna became its first Archbishop and Metropolitan. Since then, it became the pillar of the Romanian fight for independence. As such, the legacy for the Romanian Revolution of 1848-1849 was the acquisition of religious freedom and the strengthening of the resolve for independence and national unity. Another legacy of the revolution was that the three factors that characterized the Romanian history of the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, the will to promote an identity, a spirituality and freedom, became of paramount importance. In fact, those three factors contributed mainly to achieve the national unity at the end of 1918. It was not a coincidence that immediately after that, the Romanian Orthodox Church was elevated to the rank of Patriarchate.

All those events had a great influence on the Romanian-American community. The Romanians who settled in the New World brought with them the spirit and the heritage of the post 1848 generation. They were animated by the same three factors: the will to promote an identity, the will to promote a spirituality, and the will to be free. However, the way in which those features were manifested was different and conditioned by new historical circumstances. Those Romanian immigrants integrated rapidly in the fiber of their new country and became part of the American nation with a distinct personality. The three features mentioned several times before were manifested in the New World through the creation of the Romanian-fraternal society, parishes and institutions. Those institutions were created to support the distinct identity of the Romanian-Americans, to promote their spirituality; and, the Romanian-Americans defended them and kept them free of any interference.

The 1938 consecration of the “Vatra Romanească,” the headquarters of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, represented a climax of the features mentioned so many times before. For all these reasons, the three anniversaries celebrated in 1998 have relevance for Romanians, and in more than one way, they can answer two fundamental questions: Are there differences between the Romanians and the Romanian-Americans? The answer should be a clear and unequivocal, yes. They belong to two different realities and the Romanian-Americans are part of the American nation preserving a distinct personality. The second question is: Are there similarities between the Romanians and the Romanian-Americans? The answer, again, is an equally clear and unequivocal, yes. But those similarities should be sought after not in the details of the immediate reality or in the immediate historical time. They should be sought in the depth of our most intimate being where none could lie or pretend that he is something else than he actually is. Those similarities are like the features of our parents or grandparents we all rediscovered on the faces of our children and grandchildren. And if those physical features are preserved and carried from one generation to another, it would be arrogant to assume that the spiritual features are not preserved. Consequently, the similarities between the Romanians and Romanian-Americans are spiritual, and they exhibit a common existential model, a common understanding of what life is and what life ought to be. From such an understanding, those three events, 1848,1918 and 1938, are worth remembering again and again.

ALEXANDRU NEMOIANU