“The Wallachian people did not rise up because of ignorance, but, on the contrary, ignorance was the reason why this people patiently endured all the oppression for so long. The Wallachian people believed that God himself imposed this fate on them. People driven by such superstitions should rise up to break his chains, evidently he had the most legitimate reasons for such actions.’

Jacques Pierre Brissot[1] – Second letter to Joseph II

In 1784, starting from October 24, with the call of Chrysan from Breda, in the name of Horea, and until December 7, when the peasant army was defeated by the imperial troops under Mihaileni, the rebellion began in the Romanian enclave, including the serfdom from the Apuseni mountains to Maramures, Salaya and Satmara, regardless of nationality. This year marks the 238th anniversary of the Moti rebellion led by Khorei, Kloska and Krishan.

The tension that led to the beginning of this real peasant war against feudal conservatism in Transylvania gradually increased, and the whole process was facilitated by the imperial court in Vienna, especially during the reign of Joseph II, who, in trying to impose political and social reforms in this part of the empire, ran into to the stubborn resistance of the Hungarian nobility, respectively the colonists of German origin, categories that did not want to give up their privileges at all.

Imperial centralist authoritarianism saw the conservative attitude of the privileged sections of the population of Transylvania as an obstacle to the construction of a welfare empire – as imagined in “Josephinist” theories – since their opposition was also directed against peasant emancipation (which would implicitly raise the majority of Romanians to a social level at which they could hope to build a prosperous future) that would lead to an expanded revenue base for the empire.

GREAT IMPERIAL REFORMS

As early as the 16th century, the Habsburgs showed a special political interest in the heritage of the medieval kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania, but it was not until the 17th century, when the Ottoman Empire was in crisis, that conditions were created for the Habsburg Empire to take control of the region after negotiations with Michael Apafi.

In 1688, Hungary denounced Ottoman suzerainty and accepted the Habsburg protectorate, and under the Treaty of Karlovy Vary (1699) Transylvania was included in the Habsburg Empire. In December 1691, Leopold I of Habsburg issued the Diploma of Leopoldine, which served as the constitution of this newly united province for a century and a half.

Through Leopoldina’s charter, Transylvania became an autonomous province integrated into the empire, and the title of prince returned to the emperor. In 1692, a “Government” was created to manage Transylvania, which had a representative office in Vienna in 1694 – the “Avlichna Chancellery of Transylvania”. Although the Sejm of Transylvania was preserved, its powers were gradually abolished.

Empress Maria Theresa was a follower of the centralization of the empire, the policy of which continued both during the period when she co-existed in power with her son Joseph II and during the reign of Joseph, who was a convinced autocrat. The result of centralization was that the Sejm of Transylvania, which was convened annually until 1740, began to meet less and less often, and between 1762 and 1791 it did not meet at all.

The most significant political changes in Transylvania took place in the ninth decade of the 18th century, during the reign of Joseph II. The features of his autocracy were also named – Josephinism. Josephinism is understood as a stream of political and philosophical thought and, at the same time, as a way of managing the state with the aim of establishing a highly centralized state in the empire.

With the Sejm virtually removed from the political game, Josephinism administratively reorganized Transylvania, which it divided into 11 districts through successive decrees issued between 1783 and 1784. The consequence of this was that these reforms eliminated the system of three privileged nations: Hungarians, Saxons (Saxons) and Szeklers, and the majority of Romanians opened up to them for the first time in a political, social and religious perspective.

During the reign of Empress Maria Theresa, the Teresian Criminal and Civil Codes were introduced and torture was abolished as an investigative practice (later the death penalty was also abolished). Industrial production and mining were encouraged through economic reforms and, very importantly for the Romanians, the reorganization of the empire’s borders also saw the creation of Romanian border troops in Transylvania.

Admission to the border detachment gave the Romanian serf the opportunity to become free, to receive a plot of land and a minimum level of education.

But the most important for Romanians, especially for the new generations of students who managed to break away from the status of a serf by enlisting in the border guard or getting a job, were the Teresian and Josephine reforms of education.

By Ratio Educationis (1777) and Norma Regia (1781) a system of free and compulsory primary education was created. Romanians, who began to benefit from education, soon nurtured an intellectual blanket that contributed to the formation of national consciousness.

ROMANIAN ENLIGHTENMENT IN TRANSYLVANIA

The union of an important part of the Romanian Orthodox churches in Transylvania with Rome at the beginning of the 18th century was initially considered the only visible way at the time by which the Romanians could free themselves from the restrictions of being considered a tolerated nation. The main benefit was supposed to be that the Romanians could participate as equals in political affairs, and also that the prospect of economic prosperity opened up to them, even if the proportion of those who could hope for it was still much lower compared to privileged nations.

The imperial obligations to the united Romanians were not respected due to the fierce opposition of the Hungarian nobility and other privileged classes. However, a breach was created in the caste system of the privileged nations. This is how the national militancy of the united Orthodox bishop Ioan Miku – Innocent Klein, who attacked the Diet with petitions, the government and his Viennese correspondent, the imperial chancellery and, of course, the imperial court, became possible.

As Lucian Blaga shows[2]Innocent Klein became a bishop of the Orthodox Church united with Rome in 1732, and thus obtained a seat in the Transylvanian Diet. From this position, he very strongly demanded (1744) that the Romanians of Orthodox origin, who had united with the Catholic Church, be recognized as the fourth political nation of Transylvania. His request caused surprise and an automatic refusal[3]:

“The united bishop is asking for something that no one has ever demanded from our ancestors and will never be able to demand from their descendants. (…) He is asking for something that fundamentally overturns rights and freedoms. It requires something that actually shakes and disturbs the whole system of this country, which until now has been kept in proper order both in religious and political and economic matters (… ) It demands what the Wallachian clergy and plebeians never deserve.” .

After the action in the Diet, Innocent Klein was summoned to court. Before leaving for Vienna, he convened a synod in Blay without the consent of the imperial authorities and the Jesuit delegate of the Catholic Church (who oversaw the liturgical activities of the united bishop). Priests and laymen are called to the synod: from nobles to Romanian serfs. During the synodal meetings, Innocent Klein insisted on formulating a coherent program of struggle for rights as a fourth nation with the intention of presenting it to an imperial audience.

However, upon arriving in Vienna, he learns that he will not be granted an audience at court, but will be the subject of an investigation by a commission of the Aulic Chancellery to explain his actions, from questioning in the Diet to an irregularly convened synod. Innocenti Klein does not obey the call and secretly leaves Vienna, finding refuge in Rome.

Even if he had to self-exile, Innocent Miku left a legacy for the generations that followed, a political legacy that could be restored in the early years of the Josephine reforms. Followers of his ideas, especially Samuel Miku, as well as Gheorghe Shinkai or Petru Mayor, eventually contributed to the formation of the political program that will be the subject of the petition Suplex Libellus Valachorum since 1791.

Important to both Innocenti Micu and his ideological successors was the concept that the desired goal of equality of rights should be achieved within the existing political system through petitions addressed to the emperor; Especially Joseph II and his reforming zeal gave hope among the Romanians that these rights could be obtained legally, through the decision of the court in Vienna and despite the opposition of the former privileged nations. Read the full article and comment on Contributors.ro