The Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania (1685–1715) [1 ed.] 9783666503542, 9783525503546

Citation preview

Format: BEZ 155x230, Aufriss: HuCo

23 mm

Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s pastoral activity and the church-­ union of the Armenians in Transylvania proved to be a marginal subject from church-historical point of view for a long time. This qualifies as simultaneously advantage as well as disadvantage for the scholarship, too. It was an advantage because just few information had been at scholarship’s disposal through long decades. Furthermore, the literature concerning this theme was not easily available. The advantage of the above-mentioned marginality was actually concealed beneath that of the disadvantage. Upon basis of the less-systemised documents, very interesting and colourful view unfolded upon the Armenians’ confessional situation. As a matter of fact, we received inspection of the events in Transylvania belonged to the period 1685–1715, from the Armenians’ point of view.

ISBN 978-3-525-50354-6

9 783525 503546

Nagy  The Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania (1685–1715)

The author PhD Kornél Nagy is Historian, Armenologist and Research Fellow of the Eötvös Lóránd Research Network, Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute of History.

R5AS 81

Kornél Nagy

The Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania (1685–1715) Academic Studies

81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Refo500 Academic Studies Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In co-operation with Christopher B. Brown (Boston), Günter Frank (Bretten), Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer (Bern), Tarald Rasmussen (Oslo), Violet Soen (Leuven), Zsombor Tóth (Budapest), Günther Wassilowsky (Berlin), Siegrid Westphal (Osnabrück).

Volume 81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Kornél Nagy

The Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania (1685–1715)

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

The book was published with the support of the MTA BTK Lendület Long Reformation in Eastern Europe (1500–1800) Research Group.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. © 2021 by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Theaterstraße 13, 37073 Göttingen, Germany, an imprint of the Brill-Group (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Germany; Brill Österreich GmbH, Vienna, Austria) Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, Verlag Antike and V&R unipress.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Typesetting: le-tex publishing services, Leipzig Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com

41

ISSN 2197–0165 ISBN 978–3–666–50354–2

Contents

A Short Preface to the English Edition ....................................................

7

Preface ................................................................................................

9

Introduction.......................................................................................... 13 Goals and Problems ............................................................................... 13 Sources and Short Historiographical Overview .......................................... 17 Historical Antecedents. Attempts for a church-Union of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Period ..................................... Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages.......................................................................................... Rome’s Efforts for Church-Union during the Middle Ages: The Church-Unions in Cilicia.................................................................. The Effects of the Council of Ferrara-Florence on the Armenian Apostolic Church .................................................................................. The Church in the Armenian Motherland and the Issue of the Church-Union in the Early Modern Period ............................................... The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681) ..... The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court ................................................ The Re-Organisation of the Re-Conquered Territories in Light of the Church-Unions ................................................................................ Attempts to Reach a Church-Union with the Orthodox Serbians ................. The Church-Union of the Ruthenians in the Subcarpathian Region .............. The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania ................................ Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania ......................................................................................... The Armenians’ Arrival in Transylvania.................................................... The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685) .. Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689 .... Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686).......................................................................

27 27 39 42 49 54 63 63 68 72 79

87 87 94 102 111

6

Contents

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome .............................. Bishop Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz’s Ambitions regarding Transylvania ......................................................................................... The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop ....................................................................... The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696) ....................................................................... The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)......................................................... Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710) ....................................................... Bishop Oxendio’s Last Years and the Privileges Donated to Armenopolis ......

120 130 135 148 161 180 188

Conclusions.......................................................................................... 195 Sources and Literature.......................................................................... Archival Sources .................................................................................... Published Sources .................................................................................. Secondary Literature ..............................................................................

207 207 211 216

Index of Persons ................................................................................... 237 Index of Places ..................................................................................... 245 Abbreviations ....................................................................................... 251

A Short Preface to the English Edition

The present volume is the English translation of the book entitled Az Erdélyi örmények katolizációja (1685−1715) (The Catholicisation of the Armenians in Transylvania, 1685−1715), that was published in Hungarian by the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in spring, 2012. As soon as the book came out in Hungarian, researchers from abroad requested the translation of this study regarding a relatively less well-known area in church-history as well as cultural-history. After a relatively long wait, now the time has come to do so. In its structure and conclusions, the present volume is similar to the one in Hungarian, the only change that was made concerned several footnotes which were completed or simplified, while a few new archival sources and bibliographical items have been added to the List of Sources of the present volume. On October 31st, 2018, Budapest-Rome

Preface

The church-history of the Armenians in Transylvania has not been unknown to scholars in Hungary and abroad and has been considered as a most important part of international Armenology although it has never been in the focus for scholars of this discipline. Experts of Armenian studies both in Hungary and abroad have paid attention to the church-history of the Armenians in Transylvania although it has not been under serious and thorough scientific scrutiny. The main reason for this may be the fact that the documents written in several languages, especially the ones regarding the period when the church-union took place between 1685 and 1715, were not held at one place or even in one country. For this reason, the study of the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was doomed to fail since it demanded broad and versatile archival skills and a command of languages on the part of the researcher. Understanding the church-history of the Armenians in Transylvania also required a general knowledge of Armenian studies since the issue of the conversion of Armenians to Roman Catholic faith was uncharted territory not only for Hungarian but also for international research in re-catholicisation or counter-reformation. To fully understand this, one had to go back in time and start with the troubled centuries of Armenian history. The church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania can be considered as the early modern period version of a problem encountered in early medieval church-history as well. Armenians were always faced with unification attempts made first by Constantinople (Byzantium), and later by Rome and these were often accompanied by secular tendencies. Therefore, the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania proved to be a complex research area very difficult to study methodologically as well. Furthermore, one also had to bear in mind the fact that the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania practically coincided with the integration of the Transylvanian Principality into the Habsburg Monarchy as well as the re-catholicisation attempts carried out among several ethnic groups of various Orthodox Christian denominations who were living in Hungary at the time. The present study is a revised and further developed version of my PhD dissertation submitted on 16th of May in 2008, and defended a year later, on 4th of May in 2009. From taking the first notes as a student under the supervision of Ödön (Edmond) Schütz (1916–1999), Professor of Armenian Studies, to defending my dissertation, it took about 15 years. It was Professor Ödön Schütz who drew my attention to the fact that the relations between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Roman Catholic Church were hardly researched yet. In those days, I was more interested in the history of the most significant Armenian diaspora or community,

10

Preface

the one in Poland, and less in the Armenians of Transylvania which I then considered as a „peripheral” subsection from the point of view of the Polish-Armenian community. It was thanks to the support I received from Professor Ödön Schütz that I could visit Matenadaran (National Archives of Armenia) in Yerevan in 1999 and in 2000 after the death of Professor Ödön Schütz, to study the archival documents there. During these research trips I found some documents concerning the history of the Armenians in Transylvania that proved to be important later - although I did not realise their significance at the time. In the mid-1990s when Professor György István Tóth (1956−2005), one of my mentors, was studying the documents in the archives of the Apostolic Holy See concerning the Hungarian and Transylvanian Catholic missions, recommended to me to focus on the issue of the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. It was Professor György István Tóth who turned me towards the many invaluable sources written in several languages which had not been studied yet. The scholarship I received in 2004 to study in Rome gave the impetus to study the archival sources in Rome concerning the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. It was then that I got to know thoroughly the church-union of the Transylvanian Armenians as well as the life of Oxendio Virziresco (1654−1715), lay clergyman and missionary, later Uniate bishop who carried out the church-union in Transylvania. The scholarship in 2004 was followed by subsequent visits and research carried out in Rome and in the Vatican City in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2018. In the meanwhile, I did research in Transylvania in 2004 and 2007 and in Venice in 2005. These research activities were complemented by studying archival documents and public collections in Hungary concerning the above-mentioned topic. During these years, the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and the details of the career of Oxendio Virziresco became increasingly clear to me. I owe a lot of many people and many things. My study trips to Armenia in 1999 and 2000 were part of a study exchange program between the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the Armenian Academy of Sciences. The archival research in Rome and in the Vatican City in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2018 were made possible by the Klebelsberg Kunó Grant I received. Let me express my deeply felt gratitude for these generous support opportunities. It is also my duty to say thanks to all those who followed my research with sincere interest. I would like to express my gratitude to my PhD supervisor, Professor János Kalmár for his selfless support even in the most critical moments. I could always rely on him in everything. János Kalmár always encouraged me to complete my dissertation. I can only feel grateful and indebted to my opponents, Professor István Baán and Professor István Fazekas, who helped the present study with their remarks and constructive critical comments. Furthermore, I feel grateful to church-historian Antal Molnár, former head of department and director of the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Preface

who assisted me with advice concerning church-history and his example setting collegiality. He honoured me by keeping an eye on my research all along. I am also grateful to István Soós and László Bíró who spared no time and energy when they gave me well-intentioned critical feedback in reviewing and editing this manuscript. Let me express my deeply felt gratitude to historians in Hungary and abroad, scholars in Armenian and Italian studies who supported and inspired me in my research and offered remarks and advice while writing this present study. Among others, I am indebted to Bernadett Bakáts, Stefano Bottoni, Dávid Csorba, László Dajbukát, András Fejérdy, Pál Fodor, Giovanni Foschi, András Hegedűs, Klára Hegyi, Ildikó Horn, Richárd Horváth, Gáspár Katkó, Bálint Kovács, Éva Kovács,Vilmos Béla Mihalik, István Monok, Teréz Oborni, Géza Pálffy, Eszter Papp, Katalin Péter (1937−2020), Ágnes R. Várkonyi (1928−2014), Balázs Sudár, Péter Szabó (1957−2013), Gergely Tóth, Péter Tusor, Giusto Traina, Ádám Vajk, János J. Varga, Kornélia Vargha, Tamás Véghseő, and last but not least, to Claude Mutafian as well as Lewon Boghos Zekiyan, the Armenian Catholic Archbishop of Istanbul. I owe a great debt also to the Hungarian Academy in Rome. Let me thank here especially László Csorba and Péter E. Kovács, Former Directors and Director István Puskás, as well as all the employees of the Academy for their selfless assistance during my research in Rome and the Vatican City. Special thanks are due to the leadership of the Institute of History of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences where I have been working, Ferenc Glatz, former chairman and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, former minister of Education and Culture, General Director Pál Fodor and Deputy Director Attila Pók who made it possible for me to work unencumbered and complete my dissertation about the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. In publishing this book in English let me express my special thanks to Zsombor Tóth, faculty member of the Institute for Literary Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and leader of the Lendület (Momentum) Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences called Long Reformation in Eastern Europe (1500−1800) who, from the very beginning, encouraged and supported the English edition of this book. Finally, I would like to remember my professors and mentors who did not see the publication of this study. I met both Professor Ödön Schütz and Professor György István Tóth in 1992 while Vladimir Barxudarean1 (1927−2017), professor of history, former vice-chairman of the National Academy of Armenia in 1995. They supported my studies and research in every possible way until their death in 1999, 2005 1 When transcribing Armenian names and concepts, we have followed the internally accepted standard defined by AIEA (= Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes). However, the names of a few Armenian church-leaders and high priests were transcribed according to the English standard and practice adding their original Armenian names in italics in brackets.

11

12

Preface

and 2017, respectively. They inspired me both personally and professionally. The conversations I had with them remain lasting intellectual and personal experiences I cherish. Therefore, I dedicate the present volume to their memory.

Introduction

Goals and Problems The turn of the 17th and 18th centuries was one of the most exciting periods in the history of Hungary and Transylvania. The expulsion of the Ottoman Turks from these territories, the integration of the Transylvanian Principality into the Habsburg Empire after its almost one-and-a-half-century-long independence, the repopulation of huge areas that the Ottoman Turkish rule had left barren and deserted and the reorganisation of everyday life placed a huge strain on the Viennese court of the Habsburgs. The period between 1686 and 1711 represented immense challenges, opportunities and tasks for the Roman Catholic Church: CounterReformation gained momentum more than ever in the Northern and Eastern regions and the bishops of the dioceses deserted and destroyed during the 150 years of Ottoman-Turkish rule returned to their seats assisted by missionaries, lay clergy and monk priests sent by the Holy Apostolic See to re-organise the life of the congregation in Roman Catholic faith. The efforts supported by Rome and made by the Hungarian Catholic Church towards Counter-Reformation were in harmony with the interests of the Viennese court. From the point of view of the Catholic Habsburgs, the endeavours made in the spirit of Counter Reformation were encouraged not only for reasons of the faith but also for economic, demographic and socio-political considerations. For which the Roman Catholic faith provided the appropriate ideological base. According to the Viennese court a denominationally unified society allows the state to work most efficiently. It is easier to govern an, in terms of confessional faith, more homogeneous population or society which, in their turn, are readier to pay their due in the form of tax to the central treasury. Therefore, it was important for the state to have a population that was homogeneous – Roman Catholic, if possible – in their religious faith. The state and the Roman Catholic Church were also keen on converting the Orthodox Eastern Christian communities that lived in the country to the Roman Catholic faith. In doing this, the Viennese court was led mainly by the reasons outlined above. At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries as a result of former efforts, the Hungarian Catholic Church had managed to achieve several church-unions with the Eastern Christians. Conversion to Roman Catholic faith among the Serbians in Southern Hungary (Délvidék), with strong support from the Habsburg court, started at the beginning of the 17th century. The Serbians in Slavonia (Croatia) accepted the church-union with

14

Introduction

the Catholic Church at the beginning of the 17th century while the Serbians in Srjem/ Srem (Szerémség) and in County Baranya at the end of the 17th century. Serbians who signed a church-union with Rome, however, were faced with some serious difficulties. On one hand, their bishoprics were not canonised by the Apostolic Holy See which brought damage and no advantage to the Uniate Serbians. On the other hand, thousands of Serbian refugees arrived in Hungary in 1690 taking with themselves their patriarch and changed the denominational proportions among the Serbian population that resulted in the Orthodox being the majority. Led by their Serbian patriarch, they successfully countered the catholicisation efforts made by the Roman Catholic Church and the Viennese court. Furthermore, they managed to launch successful missionary activities among their Uniate compatriots for their re-conversion. After several failed attempts, the Ruthenians (Rusyns) of Subcarpathia (Kárpátalja) finally had their church-union in Užgorod in 1646 and took their confession of faith in the spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence and the church-union of Brest. In the period mentioned, the Ruthenians primarily had to deal with the practical implementation of the church-union, debates in Canon Law concerning the appointment of bishops and the establishment of an independent diocese. The court and the Roman Catholic Church considered the Catholicisation of the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania a very important question similarly to the Ruthenians. At the end of the 17th century a confessional balance was achieved between the Protestants and the Catholics in the many-denominational Transylvania. One of the key issues behind the re-catholicisation attempts was whether the numerous Orthodox Romanians of Transylvania remain Orthodox or convert to Roman Catholicism. The Viennese court believed that after the church-union of the Orthodox Romanians the confessional balance in Transylvania outlined above could be altered in favour of the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, as a result of the missionary work of the Jesuit priest, the Romanian church-union took place in Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár, Romania) in 1701. The church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania should be viewed in light of this complex church-history context. The confessional issue of the Armenian refugees fleeing from Moldavia and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between 1668 and 1672 has been an unchartered territory in Hungarian and international church-history for several reasons. The church-union of the Armenians can be linked to one person, to Bishop Oxendio Virziresco1 and his missionary and church

1 Several versions of the bishop’s name are known, e.g.: Auxendius Virzirescus, Oxendius Verzellescul, Auxentius Virziresky, Ossendio Vyrzyresco, Verzár Oxendius, Awksēnt Vrcesgul, Ōk’sēntios Vrzarean, Oxendius Wyrzyreseb (Vyrzyreseb), etc. After long deliberation we have decided to use the Italian version Oxendio Virziresco since the bishop signed his reports written to the Apostolic Holy See (Sancta Sedis Apostolica) using this name.

Goals and Problems

organisational activities that took up about thirty years. This period coincided with the integration of the Transylvanian Principality into the Habsburg Monarchy. International and Hungarian historiography had few pieces of information available concerning their history. The following facts are known: Armenians settled down led by Bishop Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i (ca. 1610–1686). This bishop allegedly accepted the Roman Catholic faith in 1686 and the church-union with Rome took place around 1690. The city called Armenopolis was founded and the Armenian Uniate bishop was imprisoned in Mukačevo (Munkács in Ukraine) during the Francis (Ferenc) Rákóczi’s War of Independence (1703−1711), and he died in Vienna in 1715. One of the major problems in studying the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was that most of the documents and sources concerning this period were held not in Hungary but in the archives of the Apostolic Holy See. The other major issue was that there were very few history books written either in Hungarian or in other languages about the church-union of the Armenians and they were of uneven quality. Apart from one or two exceptions, most of these were written in the second half of the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th century.2 These studies and historical pieces often referred to one another and cited entire chapters word by word from one another while they did not grant special importance to the Armenian church-union. Their assessment of Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s activities was similar too, and they did not go into details concerning his missionary and church organisational activities in Transylvania. For future generations they painted a romantic picture of the bishop who defended the interests of the Armenians in Transylvania in all circumstances. They described the Uniate bishop as an Apostle- or a priest prince, as the head of the Armenian nation in Transylvania. One of the goals of our present study is to review this idealistic picture with reserve. Beyond the problems that arose when studying the Armenians’ church-union in Transylvania, there are many unanswered questions which were not resolved by these few older studies. For a long time, it was not known what role the recatholicisation politics of the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church and the Viennese court played in the Armenian church-union and if they were not major factors then what was the reason for that. Nothing was known about the role the Viennese court assigned to the Armenians in their demography and resettlement policy after the expulsion of the Ottoman Turks. In others words it was not known whether at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries the authorities of the Viennese court applied, in the case of the Armenians, the various plans they had designed for the repopulation and confessional unification of the country or not.

2 For this see next subchapter.

15

16

Introduction

The question comes up what former church-union methods, experiences and patterns the court meant to use to carry out the Armenian church-union. Could, therefore, the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania be compared to the missionary and re-catholicisation activities of the Ruthenians carried out in Subcarpathia, or the Serbians in Southern Hungary or the Romanians in Transylvania? Could one place these church-unions in parallel to one another or was the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania an entirely separate event? Was it a church-union that took place due to an outside influence independent from the activities of the Hungarian Catholic Church? Was the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania merely a self-serving event? It has not been clarified what economic policies and considerations led to the church-union if there were any. Were the Armenian priests promised noble ranks or a tax-free status? Since the sources had not been studied or analysed, it was unclear whether the church-union was motivated only by the re-establishment of a unified faith. It was not clarified either whether the Armenian church-union had any precedents in the Middle Ages or the early modern period. In this regard, one should examine thoroughly whether the formerly held councils and synods in the Armenian Motherland, in Cilicia, the Council of Ferrara-Florence, Brest and Lviv as well as the former church-unions had any impact on the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. Last, did the church-union of the Armenians have any connections abroad? It was unknown whether there had been any attempts at a church-union before Oxendio arrived in Transylvania. Based on the sources known it was impossible to decide whether Bishop Minas did in fact accept the Roman Catholic faith and by doing that prepared the way for the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. It was unclear also when, how and in what circumstances the church-union took place among the Armenians in Transylvania. It has not satisfactorily been explored in what circumstances and on what terms the appointment of Oxendio Virziresco as a bishop happened. To what extent did the Apostolic Holy See, the Hungarian Catholic Church or the Viennese court play their part in this? Former research has not clarified with sufficient care and precision whether the church-union of the Armenians happened in Transylvania without any conflicts or if it took place fraught with internal fights, and apostasies. The question what vision the Uniate Armenian priests had of the church-union requires a precise and satisfactory answer. After the church-union took place, were the Armenian churchtraditions kept, or did absolute Latinisation of the Armenians in Transylvania gain the upper hand? Regarding this, it would be important to analyse what Bishop Oxendio thought of the church-union and its advantages. Did he insist on keeping the old Armenian (church) rites, or was he a firm believer of Latinisation? If he

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview

insisted on Latinisation in the practical implementation of the church-union, what were his reasons? In light of the studies available, little was known about Oxendio’s pastoral mission, if he had supporters in Transylvania or not, how he was remunerated and to what extent financial considerations influenced his missionary activities in Transylvania. It is unclear whether Oxendio as a Uniate bishop was charged with the spiritual care of only the Armenians or if he was supposed to look after the Catholic Hungarians and the Seklers (the Székelys) as well. Research has not revealed whether Oxendio’s missionary activities focused upon Transylvania only or if they extended to neighbouring regions. It would be important to find out what the court in Vienna, the Roman Catholic Church and the Armenians themselves thought of the church-union of the Armenians. Finally, the question should be answered whether the church-union of the Armenians in comparison with other church-unions can be called a success or a failure. The questions listed above prove that one can only study the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and Bishop Oxendio’s pastoral activities with thoroughness and great care. In the present study, we shall attempt to answer the above-mentioned questions with precision, based on the small number of archival documents that have been worked with by researchers, the numerous archival documents in Hungary and abroad which have not been studied yet and the critically analysed results yielded by the few studies available. We do believe that with the present study we shall clarify these questions and dissolve obscurity that has surrounded and influenced the church-history of the Armenians in Transylvania between 1685 and 1715 until today.

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview The backbone of the present study is the sources we have explored in the archives of the Apostolic Holy See. These sources provide detailed information about the activities of Bishop Oxendio in Transylvania between 1685 and 1715 as well as the Armenians in Transylvania. Especially the historical archives of the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide/ Sacra Congregatio pro gentium Evangelisatione seu de Propaganda Fide (Sacred/ Holy Congregation for Propagation of Faith)3 and the Secret Archives of the Vatican (Archivio Segreto Vaticano) preserved a huge amount of documents.4 Among the Hungarian and international scholars István 3 This Institution will be referred to as Propaganda Fide. 4 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196.; Vanyó, 1933. 113–118.; Vanyó, 1986. 180–182.; These sources about the church of the Armenians in Transylvania were collected by Cardinal Giuseppe Garampi (1725−1792), former archivist, legate in Vienna, later bishop, in the last third of the 18th century. About his activity as

17

18

Introduction

Baán, Kálmán Benda (1913−1994), István Fazekas, Ferenc Galla (1888−1977), Antal Hodinka (1864−1946), Raymond Haroutioun Kévorkian, Antal Molnár, Gregorio Petrowicz (1916−2004), János Sávai, Ödön Schütz, Paul Shore, György István Tóth, Tihamér Vanyó OSB (1905−2005), and Athanasius Welikyj highlighted the importance of the documents of the archives of the Apostolic Holy See concerning the Armenians in Transylvania.5 The Archives of the Jesuit Order in Rome (Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu), especially the documents concerning the Austrian Province (Fondo Austria) hold invaluable sources of the re-catholicisation in Hungary and in Transylvania. Some of the most important sources can be found in the volumes containing the year books of the above-mentioned province which, year after year, reported in a well organised manner on the Jesuit missions in Hungary and in Transylvania. From the point of view of our topic, one paragraph written in contemporary Latin about the period in question deserves our attention in the year book of 1697 where important and additional information about the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania, their rites and church life can be found.6 Further data can be found about the Armenians in Transylvania in the Nation Arhcive of Austria (Österreichische Staatsarchiv) in Vienna. A small number of documents concern Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s stay in Vienna between 1712 and 1715 when he left Transylvania to apply for privileges for the city of Armenopolis.7 Unfortunately, no information has been found in the archives of the Mechitarist abbeys in Vienna and Venice regarding the early history of the Armenians in Transylvania that would help research the topic. There are a lot of documents about the Armenians in Transylvania but the topics of these ones focused upon the last third of the 18th century. At Matenadaran, the National Archive of Armenia in Yerevan only a few manuscripts of Transylvanian, Polish or Moldavian origin survived from the above-mentioned period. The majority of these documents provide information about the exodus of the Armenians in Transylvania with special attention to the

an archivist see: Dell’ Orto, 1995.; Vanysacker, 1995.; Vanysacker, 1997. xi–xviii.; Squicciarini, 1998. 182−185.; Important information can be found in the documents entitled Fondo Missioni of the Secret Archives of the Vatican about the Armenians in Transylvania. These documents provide valuable information about the church history of the Armenians of Transylvania from the period following the church-union. On this see.: AAV, FM. Vol. 106. (Unnumbered folio.) 5 Vanyó, 1991. 332−337.; Tusor, 2004. 6 ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81. 7 ÖSTA, AVFHA. SA. Rote Nr. 8. Konv.; ÖSTA, AVFHA HFÖ. rote Nr. 750.; ÖSTA, AVFHA. FAH. Kt.; ÖSTA, KA. HPE. Bd. 415. Fol. 714.; Kölönte, 1910. 138.; Kovács, 2006. 55.; Garda, 2007. 228.

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview

religious situation of the Armenians of Transylvania and Moldavia and about the conversions to the Roman Catholic faith.8 Few documents are available about the church-union of the Armenians of Transylvania in the church archives of the Armenians in Transylvania. The documents concerning the Armenian congregation in Bistrița are held in the archives of the Apostolic Holy See.9 In the library of the Armenian Catholic main parish in Elisabethopolis (Dumbrăveni/ Ebesfalva/Erzsébetváros, Romania) the earliest document is from 1729 although the Uniate parish was founded by Bishop Oxendio Virziresco in 1708. In the library of the Armenian Catholic parish in Gheorgheni (Gyergyószentmiklós, Romania) only one fragmented manuscript written in Classical Armenian (grabar) survived from this period which details the history of the parish from its foundation in 1695 to 1719. The manuscript, however, provides only a few pieces of useful information about Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s activities.10 Armenopolis is a more difficult case. On one hand, archival sources of the church provide information about the Armenian Church mainly from the second half of the 18th century, and on the other hand, the first Armenian Church was consecrated only in 1722 while the first cathedral in 1794. A lot of documents of the church were scattered or destroyed during the many moves. On the other hand, we have good documentation of the Armenian local government and law court in Armenopolis which provide us insight into litigations, the legal, economic, and sometimes church affairs of the Armenians in Transylvania between 1714 and 1799. Five manuscripts survived from this period, which today are held in the Archives of the History Museum of Armenopolis. These documents inform us of the establishment of the local government of the Armenian town and the tax the Armenians paid.11 The case regarding the documents about the other Armenian settlement, Frumoasa (Csíkszépvíz, Romania), is more difficult to tackle. This was the oldest Armenian community in Transylvania. However, the Crimean Tartar invasion in 1694 destroyed this place almost completely. Around 1759 more Armenian refugees arrived from Moldavia and sixty Armenian families settled down in the village. The Armenian documents concerning Frumoasa were written after 1760 and were

8 For example: MA Ms, No. 3519 (Unnumbered folio.). 9 APF SOCG, Vol. 529., Vol. 531., Vol. 532., Vol. 533., Vol. 534.; APF SC, Fondo Armeni. Vol. 4. 10 The Uniate parish in Gheorgheni was established in 1695 by Bishop Oxendio Virziresco. Its first parish priest was Jakab Luszig Cziffra (Yakob Lusikean Jiffŗayec’i) who was ordained by the bishop. GYÖKPK, Plébánia Története [History of the Parish]. I. Könyv [Volume]. 1. Fejezet [Chapter] (1695–1719). 11 SZTMK, No. 28., No. 29., No. 30., No. 31., No. 32.

19

20

Introduction

kept in the parish libraries of Elisabethopolis and after 1785 in the parish library of Frumoasa as well as in the Historical Archives of Propaganda Fide.12 The Archives of the Archdiocese in Alba Iulia provide a lot of documents for researchers concerning the history of the Armenians of Transylvania. The problem here is that the earliest one of most Canonical visitations is from 1731. We have not found data concerning the period when Oxendio was active and when the church-union took place since there was no permanent diocesan appointed to head the bishopric in Transylvania then. Although György Mártonffy (1663–1721), born in Cârța (Csíkkarcfalva, Romania) in Transylvania, was appointed in 1713 but could take up this position and start to re-organise the Roman Catholic Diocese in Transylvania only in 1716, right after Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s death.13 Few but very important sources are held in Hungarian archives regarding Oxendio Virziresco, the Armenian bishop himself. In the Hungarian National Archives four important documents can be found regarding Oxendio Virziresco’s activities in Transylvania. It is important to note that the documents of the Transylvania’s Chancellery (Cancellaria Aulica Transylvaniae, Siebenbürgische Hofkanzlei) and Governorship of Transylvania (Gubernium Transylvanicum) dated from the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries were edited and compiled in an arbitrary fashion after the Rákóczi’s War of Independence.14 Among the legal documents of the Governorship of Transylvania there is one dated from 1698 around the time Armenopolis was founded by Bishop Oxendio Virziresco, regarding the legal and financial litigation against Bailiff István Apor (1638–1704). Two more documents were found in the archive of Prince Francis Rákóczi II (1676–1735) which detail Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s incarceration by the Kuruc, the armed anti-Habsburg rebels.15 Finally a source from 1711 can be found in the Transylvania Fiscal Archives, a petition written in Latin by the Uniate bishop and submitted to the Governorship of Transylvania regarding Armenopolis.16 In the Hungarian National Archive about the above-mentioned period one can study only a few census lists and petitions concerning the Armenian community.17 The sources found in the Esztergom Primate’s Archive (in Hungary) concern primarily the conflict in Elisabethopolis in 1692. These documents help paint a more

12 APF SC, FA. Vol. 16. Fol. 300., Fol. 324., Fol. 413.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 18. Fol. 330–331.; Horváth –Lupták – Monok –Nagy, 2018. xlv−xvlix. 13 Bernád, 2006. 239. 243. 264.; Szögi, 2006. 14 MNL-OL, F 46. 1698. No. 238. 15 MNL-OL, G 16. I. 2. d. No. 520.; MNL-OL, G 19. II. 2 e/a. 16 MNL-OL, F 234. XII 12 . Fasc. Litt. A.; APF SOCG, Vol. 580. Fol. 560–565. 17 MNL-OL, F 46. 1698. No. 50.; MNL-OL, F 49. No. 5. 13. Fasc.

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview

nuanced picture of Bishop Oxendio, offer useful and important data to complement the documents of this topic in the Archives of the Apostolic Holy See. 18 The Hevenesi, Kaprinay and Pray Collections (Collectio Hevenesiana, Collectio Kaprinayana, Collectio Prayana) of the University Library of the Eötvös Loránd State University (ELTE) in Budapest, Hungary, hold a lot of valuable documents concerning the history of Hungarian churches. Jesuit fathers, Gábor Hevenesi SJ (1654–1715), István Kaprinay SJ (1714−1785), and György Pray SJ (1723−1801) and their colleagues copied a remarkable number of documents in the 18th century in different secular and church archives, they wrote treatises about important topics most of which remained in manuscript form.19 A few of these are about the foundation of the Armenian settlement in Elisabethopolis and the Armenian conflict between 1691 and 1692. A document was written by Armenians in Transylvania in 1692 that described the faith and rites of the Uniate Armenians.20 The anoother document called in Latin Fidelis relatio attributed to an unknown author, dated from 1693, can be considered the earliest source of the history of the Armenian Church in Transylvania.21 Among the documents held in the University Library of the Eötvös Loránd State University in Budapest the most important are the ones regarding Rudolf Bzensky (Bžensky) SJ (1651–1715), a Jesuit Father from Czech-Moravia, who was active in Transylvania. He prepared a 40-page report on his missionary activities in 1694 for Father Gábor Hevenesi SJ where he described the Transylvanian churches and ethnic groups in twelve chapters. Rudolf Bzensky painted a detailed picture of the religious lives of the Armenians, the Romanians, the Saxons, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, and the Hungarians. Father Bzensky detailed the confessional situation of the Transylvanian Armenians in four pages where he described their history from the time they settled down in Transylvania until Oxendio Virziresco was ordained as a bishop in 1691. He provided valid information about the Transylvanian Armenians and it is clear that the Moravian Jesuit priest may have received first-hand information from Oxendio himself.22

18 19 20 21 22

PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 273/2., No. 274/1–4., No. 274/8. Molnár, 2006. 19. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 77−80. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81–84.; Nagy, 2010. 379−394. APF SC, FUT. Vol. 2. Fol. 377.; ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/I. Fol. 336.; ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/II. Fol. 369., Fol. 409., Fol. 492., Fol. 536., Fol. 566., Fol. 602., Fol. 646., Fol. 688.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 151. Pag. 29., Pag. 63., Pag. 120.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 152. Fol. 13., Fol. 18.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 8. Pag. 57–61.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 248–252.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 5., 32–34.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination).; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 29. Pag. 346.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 87. Pag. 273–302.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 11. Pag. 112.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 162−176.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 173., Fol. 170., Fol. 178.; Ilia, 1730.; Benda−Tóth, 1994. 20−25.; Rus, 1994a.

21

22

Introduction

The corpora of sources about the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania provide few and fragmented data, for example the 2-volumed one published by the Jesuit Father, Nicolaus Nilles SJ (1828−1907) in Innsbruck in 1885. Let us mention here that the data provided by Nilles are from the University Library in Budapest.23 The most reliable source on Transylvanian Armenian church-history has been the year book written by the Armenian Uniate Bishop Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka (1670–1739) of Poland. The chronicle written in classical Armenian described with great detail the relationship between the Armenian Church and the Roman Catholic Church from early medieval times until 1730. A special emphasis is laid on the history of the Armenian Church in Poland in the 17th and 18th centuries. Roszka succinctly described Armenians in Transylvania, especially with the activities of Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i and Oxendio Virziresco. He made very bold statements in his writing, especially concerning the high priest in the Motherland who, according to him, had willingly opted for the church-union with Rome. In spite of this, Roszka’s book is invaluable since he provides reliable information about Poland and Transylvania. Roszka’s manuscript was held for a long time in the archives of the Mechitarist Congregation in Vienna.24 For our topic, the Csángó-Hungarian records published under the leadership of Professor Kálmán Benda, a Hungarian historian, as a result of the scholarly project has won acclaim from both Hungarian and international academics. Professor Benda published in that book the documents found in the archives of the Propaganda Fide containing the reports and correspondence written by the Roman Catholic missionaries on their activities among the Csángó-Hungarians in Moldavia from the end of the 15th to the end of the 17th centuries. Although most of the documents are either related to Hungarian or Romanian history, the sources often refer directly to the Armenian communities and church in Moldavia at the time when they settled down there between 1668 and 1672. Furthermore, the sources mention a smaller move of Armenians from Moldavia to Transylvania earlier than the above-mentioned period and make comments on Franciscan monks of Armenian origin who had already converted to the Roman Catholic faith and lived in Șumuleu (Csíksomlyó, Romania).25 Very few useful pieces of literature are available concerning our topic, the Armenian church-union and Bishop Oxendio’s activities. Let us mention here the book written in Latin and published in Vienna in 1859 by Kristóf Lukácsy (1804–1879), a former seminarist of the Collegium Pazmaneum in Vienna, and Armenian Uniate 205–270.; Rus, 1994b. 233–240.; Rus, 1996. 369–457.; Rus, 1997. 183–275.; Rus, 1998. 289–330.; Sávai, 1997a. 428–429.; Tóth, 1998b. 350−353. 23 Nilles,1885. 915–936. 24 APF SOCG, Vol. 571. Fol. 618–621.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 25 Benda, 2003.

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview

Dean in Armenopolis, who summarised the church-history of the Armenians in Transylvania until the middle of the 19th century.26 Lukácsy cited many sources without unfortunately providing precise information where they could be found. In spite of this, his book has been considered as a corner stone in international Armenian studies.27 The Transylvano-Armenian Mechitarist scholar, Lukács Bárány OMech. wrote a study in three parts about Bishop Oxendio Virziresco in 1888 in the journal called ’Arménia’ of the Transylvanian Armenians.28 This was the first scholarly treatise that attempted to summarise the bishop’s activities in Transylvania. On the other hand, Bárány’s study that relies heavily on Kristóf Lukácsy‘s above-mentioned book, provides many erroneous or misleading pieces of information.29 Similarly to Bárány, Gergely Kovrig OMech. (by his Armenian name: Grigor Govrikean) was also born in Elisabethopolis, and was also a Mechitarist father. He published his monograph on the history of his hometown in Vienna in 1886. However, he provided few data about the church-union of the Armenians living there and the circumstances of their conversion to the Roman Catholic faith.30 The book of János Temesváry (1857−1922), also published in 1896, describes the history and the coats-of-arms of the Armenian families who were granted a noble title is note-worthy. The outstanding historian of Transylvanian-Armenian origin included the Verzár family (the Hungarian version of the surname Virziresco) in Armenopolis among the ones who became noble. The Verzárs were related to Oxendio Virziresco. Temesváry proved that the nobility granted to this family by Queen Maria Theresa (1740–1780) in 1761 was partly due to Oxendio’s mission but did not provide useful information about the bishop’s missionary activities.31 The monograph written by Gábor Éble (1843−1923) about the Virziresco (Verzár) family in Armenopolis is somewhat similar to that of János Temesváry. Éble was assisted by Márton Katapán, Armenian Uniate (Catholic) parish-priest in Armenopolis in gathering data. Éble provided sufficient information on Bishop Oxendio Virziresco especially in connection with the foundation of Armenopolis. On the other hand, the author dedicated only a few paragraphs to the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and admitted to have borrowed these from the

26 Beke, 1870. 155.; Szabó–Szögi, 1998. 304. 27 Lukácsy, 1859. 28 This journal was active for twenty years at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and was considered the headquarters for Hungarian Armenian studies. Its editor-in-chief was historian Kristóf Szongott and among its authors we can find the elite of Transylvanians Armenians such as Antal Jakab, Gábor Éble, Antal Molnár, Lukács Bárány, Félix Avedik, Gergely Moldován, and JánosTemesváry. 29 Bárány, 1888a. 65–71.; Bárány, 1888b. 101–106.; Bárány, 1888c. 137–142. 30 Govrikean, 1896. 31 Temesváry, 1896.

23

24

Introduction

above-mentioned book written by Christopher Lukácsy. Éble concentrated on the nobility offered to the Verzárs in 1761 and to the different prestigious positions and ranks the members of the family held in Transylvania in the 19th century.32 In the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century several monographs were published that concerned the history, the church and the culture of the Armenians in Transylvania. These books were not scholarly in general but informative and educational pieces and were in part published to draw attention to the culture and traditions of the by then completely assimilated Transylvanian Armenians.33 Among the scholarly pieces written in the last decades it is worth noting the book of essays published in Yerevan in 1983 by the Institute of the History of the National Academy of Armenia and the Institute of History of the Hungarian Academies of Sciences. The authors of this book concentrate on the meeting points of Hungarian and Armenian history with a special attention paid to the legal, economic and social history of the community in Transylvania. Studies were contributed by Ödön Schütz, Zsolt Trócsányi (1926−1987), Emil Niederhauser (1923−2010), Antal Vörös (1926−1983), Gábor Bóna, Éva Bagi, Gayane Pingiryan, and Surēn K’ōlančian (1923−2006). Unfortunately, this volume has not been published in Hungary yet. Let us add here that no mention is made of the church-union of the Armenians in the studies.34 One must mention here the scientific activities of the Armenian historian of Romanian birth, Surēn K’ōlančian, who studied in depth the history of the Armenians both in Moldavia and in Transylvania. His studies written about the Armenians in Transylvania were published in 1962 and 1967 in Yerevan and Paris, respectively. Unfortunately, he did not concentrate on the confessional status of the Armenians in Transylvania, their church-union or Bishop Oxendio Virziresco’s activities.35 The Polish-Armenian Uniate priest and scholar, Gregorio (Gregorz) Petrowicz’s (1916−2004) book was published in Rome in Italian in 1988. The monograph primarily details the history of the Armenian Uniate Church in Poland from 1681 to 1947. Father Petrowicz‘s thorough book provides ample sources and literature. He dedicates a few subchapters to the history of the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania. In one of these he writes about Bishop Oxendio’s activities in 26 pages and refers to several sources at the Apostolic Holy See. In this book Gregorio Petrowicz deals with the unresolved issues in the church-history of the Armenians in Poland. On the other hand, his book is incomplete from several points of view. 32 Éble, 1915. 33 Lukácsy, 1867.; Ávedik, 1904.; Ávedik, 1896.; Merza, 1902.; Merza, 1913.; Szongott, 1901.; Szongott, 1903. 34 This volume was edited by Vladimir Barxudaryan and Antal Vörös. 35 K’olanĵian, 1962. 499−531.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 355−376.; K’olanĵian, 1983. 105−127.

Sources and Short Historiographical Overview

The subchapters concerning the Armenians in Transylvania are, in general, sketchy and the sources at the Apostolic Holy See he refers to are not always provided with precision and accuracy. He also disregarded a significant part of the documents at the Apostolic Holy See such as the papers in the Vatican and the many important documents concerning Armenians in Transylvania held in the Historical Archives of the Propaganda Fide when writing his book.36 In the 1990s Judit Pál from Transylvania worked on the economic activities of the Armenians in Transylvania during the 17th and 18th centuries. His studies were published in Romanian and Hungarian academic journals. Her research concerning the demography of the Armenians in Transylvania is especially note-worthy and is one of the most important studies written about the history of the Armenians in Transylvania.37 From among the researchers of the newer generation Emese Pál and Bálint Kovács especially deserve mentioning who have excelled in uncovering and processing data found in the Armenian Church archives as well as presenting the artefacts of cultural memory of the Armenian Catholic Church in Transylvania. Bálint Kovács’s promising research focuses on the religious education and culture of the Armenians in Transylvania as well as their inter-confessional relations and social integration during the 18th century.38

36 Petrowicz, 1988. 37 Pál, 1997. 104–120.; Pál, 2013a. 9−16. 38 Kovács, 2006. 49–68.; Kovács, 2007. 30–46.; Kovács, 2010.; Drost-Abgarjan – Kovács – Márti, 2011.; Bernád − Kovács, 2011.; Kovács, 2013. 53−63.; Pál, 2013b. 73−83.; Pál, 2015.

25

Historical Antecedents Attempts for a church-Union of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Period

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages Without a short summary of the theological and Christological debates that took place in the early medieval period one cannot understand the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania because in the focus of the re-catholicisation attempts within the Armenians lay not only the question of the primacy of Rome but also the issue concerning the essence, the nature and the incorruptible nature of the body of Jesus Christ. In this regard, one should take into account the fact that the history of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the problems in connection with it are hardly known in the academic field in Hungary. Therefore, let us outline this apparently distant topic. From the establishment of the Armenian Apostolic Church at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries, it took great care in preserving its independence although it was in close connection with the great centres of the Eastern Christian world.1 The strife to remain independent was due to the fact that Armenia, except a few short periods, was situated outside the Roman Empire. Although Saint Gregory the Illuminator (287−330), (the Apostle of the Armenians), who was of Armenian origin but, in fact, descended from the royal dynasty of Parthian origin, acquired his Christian education in Caesarea in Cappadocia where Greek and Latin culture prevailed. His most important supporters arrived in Armenia from Edessa (Urfa, Turkey) of Aramaic culture. So, when the entire Armenia was converted to Christianity, a church institution structure independent of Unified Orthodoxy but in harmony with its teachings was built. The followers of the Armenian Apostle continued to develop this church organisation. At the beginning of the 5th century an independent alphabet and thus literacy was created by Abbot Saint Mesrop Maštoc’ (362−440) and the words of the Bible (Astwacašunč’) as well as the early theological writings were translated from Aramaic into Old Armenian which, in

1 Xorenac’i, 1913. 142−161.; Van Esbroeck, 1962. 430−431.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 7−9. 12.; Van Esbroeck, 1972. 241−249. 266−275.; Van Esbroeck, 1983. 171−195.; Buzand, 1989. 67. 82. 89. 110. 140. 157.; Garsoïan, 1999. 19−21.

28

Historical Antecedents

terms of culture, foretold the separation of the Armenian Apostolic Church from the Orthodox Church.2 What could have been the reason for this attempt to remain independent? As is known, in the late Roman Empire two different cultures were developed at the consolidation of Christianity. One of these was Latin while the other one was Greek. This latter one also served as an “intellectual” mediating language within the church. In the Eastern Provinces Greek culture became even more dominant since theological treatises and polemics were written in this language. This culture was linked to the idea of unified Christianity. This unity, however, was interpreted differently in the Eastern and the Western Provinces. In the West, due to the migration of peoples political and social changes occurred but although the state collapsed the church institutions remained in place. Latin language played an important part in this and remained a unifying force. The invading Barbarians who meant to settle down wanted to become Latin and Roman and in the following few centuries a cultural and linguistic assimilation process took place.3 The situation was different in the Eastern Christian region. Greek language was dominant but in this cultural area where Greek language was dominant Egypt and Syria could keep their linguistic and cultural independence from Hellenistic culture. These two regions played an important role in spreading Christianity in Africa, in the Middle East, and in the Caucasian region. Syrian missionaries taught Armenians the Biblical tradition that each nation received the Word of God in their own languages. Therefore, their separate literacy provided the opportunity for autocephaly although they considered themselves an organic part of the unified church. This independence produced a lot of conflicts in due course which resulted in violent unification attempts first on the part of Constantinople.4 In connection with this, the question arises what need there was in the early Middle Ages to unite one of the oldest Christian church in the world with Orthodoxy. It has been debated when exactly the Armenian Church started to grow apart from the unified church. Some scholars think that Armenians became independent from the Metropolite of Caesarea in Cappadocia already back in 375 when the socalled Manazkert (Manzikert) church officials held this office.5 Others explain the tendency for growing apart with the religious polemics during the period between 5th and the 7th centuries. The focus of these religious debates was the dogmatic and political conflicts in connection with the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon

2 Garitte, 1946. 197−198. 299−300.; Winkler, 1982. 125−140.; Ter-Petrosyan, 1986. 95−109.; Garsoïan, 1999. 2. 7. 3 Garitte, 1946. 344. 350−353.; Garsoïan, 1999.; Meyendorff, 2001. 37−39. 4 Van Esbroeck, 1962. 430−432.; Amadouni, 1968. 142.; Meyendorff, 2001. 40−42. 5 Garitte, 1959. 102−112.; Winkler, 1980. 125−141.; Garsoïan, 1999. 399−409.; Meyendorff, 2001. 43−46. 479−480.

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages

in 451 A.D. The majority of Armenists are of the latter view and consider it more credible and more valid.6 From research led by Nina Garsoïan and John Meyendorff (1926−1992) it is known that in the early period the position of the official head of the Armenian Apostolic Church was first closely connected to the Aršakuni (Arsacid) dynasty of Parthian origin while the positions of the bishops were linked to the Armenian aristocratic clans.7 The Catholicos, therefore, was the head of the national church while in the early church the bishops considered themselves as the spiritual leaders of the aristocratic clans (nakharars) since the majority of the bishops were from this noble clan. The representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church signed the decrees at the national councils according to this and did not add regional labels referring to towns next to their names. The councils of the Armenian Apostolic Church were, in fact, meetings where the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, in other words, the Catholicos, and the bishops present had discussions with the heads of the clans. This meant that these national councils gave the Armenian faith not only a spiritual but most definitely also a political and a cultural meaning.8 These circumstances were formed by the fights of the Armenians to stay alive as a Christian minority surrounded by an overwhelming majority of Persian Zoroastrian culture.9 The Armenians were not particularly fond of the rule of the Sasanians (Sassanids) who often persecuted the Christians but they had little space to move and had to seem loyal to the Persian kings. Also, they were often forced to request the Persians to defend them against the expansion of Constantinople.10 It occurred that the Armenians asked for help from the Eastern Roman Empire against the oppression of the Persians and their request was turned down in the Imperial City (Constantinople) referring to state interest. It is interesting to note that there are data both in the Armeno-Chalcedonian writings and the church texts of the Armenian Apostolic Church, which prove that the Persian kings interfered with various church affairs, for example in the organisational independence of the Armenian Apostolic Church separate from the structure of the empire as well as the calling of national councils that criticised and not condemned the Fourth Ecumencial Council in Chalcedon.11 It is worth noting that by the middle of the 5th century the

6 Koriwn, 1941. 48–50.; Garitte, 1952. 11. 13. 403–404.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 46–47; Garsoïan, 1987. 883–895.; Buzand, 1989. 145–146.; Garsoïan, 1992. 41–45.; Meyendorff, 2001. 140. 7 Agat’angełos, 1909. 414–415.; Garsoïan, 1973. 119–138.; Garsoïan, 1976. 177–234.; Garsoïan, 1983a. 233–234. 250.; Meyendorff, 2001. 142. 8 Garsoïan, 1967. 297–320.; Adontz, 1970. 266–267.; Garsoïan, 1983a. 223–224. 9 Garsoïan, 1983b. 165.; Buzand, 1989. 200–201. 234.; Garsoïan, 1988. 249–285. 10 Xorenac’i, 1913. 142–161.; Winkler, 1985. 85−180.; Buzand, 1989. 437–438. 440–443. 456–458.; Garsoïan, 1992. 40–47. 11 Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 9–13.; Sarkissian, 1975. 102–103.; Garsoïan, 1999. 91–96.

29

30

Historical Antecedents

Armenian Apostolic Church lost direct touch with both Rome and Constantinople. The national uprising led by Lord Vardan Mamikonean (393−451) in 449 against the Sassanids practically turned the region beyond the Caucasus in flames. Due to this, the Armenians were entirely left out of the events at the Council of Chalcedon and received no military or political help from Constantinople.12 If we briefly consider the teachings of the early Armenian councils, then it is apparent that the representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church dealt primarily with disciplinary issues and not questions of dogma. From the writings of Faustus of Byzantium (P‘awstos Buzand), Armenian historian living in the second half of the 5th century, we can learn that the councils of the Armenian Apostolic Church were almost always held in Aštišat in the 4th and 5th centuries.13 The earliest known council was held in 365 and headed by Catholicos Saint Nersēs I, the Parthian (Nersēs Part’ew) (353–373). This national council determined church order, decided that schools and hospitals should be built next to each monastery and church building.14 As far as we know, the earliest canons of the Armenian Apostolic Church were approved only at the national council held in Šahapiwan in 444. Šahapiwan was a milestone in the Armenian church-history because they decided to render bishoprics to provinces instead of noble clans. The members of the council also approved that each Armenian province should be headed by a bishop and no diocese should be left without a head. This regulation, in fact, established the system of dioceses. They broke off from the formerly held unwritten law that bishops should have their seats in the centres of the aristocratic clans and placed them in big monastic centres.15 Not long after the council of the Armenian Apostolic Church held in Šahapiwan, the next one was called for in Aštišat in 449. At the national council the bishops and clergymen gathered discussed the edict of the Sasanian King Yazdegerd III (439–457) in which he was forcing Armenians to convert from Christianity to Zoroastrianism. The council wrote a letter to the king in which they assured him of their loyalty to the Sasanian court but refused to convert due to state interest.16 The earliest known dogmatic issues within the Armenian Apostolic Church centred about the teachings of the so-called School of Antioch. They followed the

12 P’arpec’i, 1904. 44–45. 100–101. 110.; Ełišē, 1957. 27–28. 177–179.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 61.; Sarkissian, 1975. 140. 150–153.; Garsoïan, 1999. 127. 13 Buzand, 1989. 67–68.; Garsoïan, 1999. 5. 14 Garsoïan, 1969. 148–164.; Garsoïan, 1983b. 145–160.; Garsoïan, 1999. 38–42. 15 Arcruni, 1985a. 80–82.; Akinean, 1949. 79–170.; Garitte, 1952. 424.; Kanonagirk’, 1964. 475–490.; Mercier–Mahé, 1981. 187–262.; Maksoudian, 1982. 498.; Garsoïan, 1999. 185–189. 16 P’arpec’i, 44–45.; Akinean, 1949. 102.; Mahé, 1993. 461.; Garsoïan, 1999. 126–127.

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages

teachings of Theodore the Interpreter (350−428), bishop of Mopsuestia and Nestorius (386−451), Archbishop of Constantinople with special attention. Latin sources mention an Armenian national council without a precise location around 427 where, beside the writings of Theodore the Interpreter, the participants discussed the teachings of the Syrian Rabbula (411−435), Bishop of Edessa as well as the writings of Bishop Acacius of Melitine.17 The Armenian bishops could not decide on these matters, therefore they sent an envoy to Constantinople to ask Patriarch Saint Proclus’s (434−446) view on this.18 Koriwn, the Armenian hagiographer from the 5th century stated that his teachers, Catholicos Saint Isaac I (390–439) (Sahak Part’ew) and Archimandrite Saint Mesrop Maštoc’, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, rejected the teachings of Theodore, the Interpreter.19 The majority of the Armenian bishops could not participate at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon held in 451 due to the uprising since the Armenian Apostolic Church led by the Catholicos and most of the bishops played an active part in the war of independence spearheaded by Lord Vardan Mamikonean. The bishops of the Armenian provinces under the rule of the Byzantine Empire, however, attended the Council of Chalcedon and approved the dogma on the two natures of Jesus Christ. It is important to mention this because the Armenian priests and high priest who accepted the church-union with the Roman Catholic Church saw the bishops attending the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon as their spiritual forefathers. For them, these bishops were the first true representatives of the Armenian Uniate Church.20 In the second half of the 5th century the Sasanian Empire realised the conflict in the church and strongly supported the Nestorian Church that opposed Constantinople and Rome. In the meantime, Emperors Zeno (476–491) and Anastasius I (491–518) intervened for the sake of the Christian communities that lived in Persia and new connections were made with the Armenian Apostolic Church. In 505 and 506 when the relations between Constantinople and the Sasanian Iran temporarily stabilised, Catholicos Babgēn I (490–515) (Babgēn Ot’msec’i) rejected the teachings of Nestorius with great pleasure at the first national Council of Dwin held in 506 and accepted the Henotikon as the official teaching of the unified Christian church. Furthermore, at this national council Catholicos Babgēn I made a confession of traditional Cyrillian faith. Furthermore, he rejected the teachings of Archimandrite

17 18 19 20

Garitte, 1952. 34–36.; Ganjakec’i, 1961. 61.; Zekiyan, 1982. 165.; Garsoïan, 1999. 213. Asołik, 1885. 82–83.; Garsoïan, 1996. 99–112. Koriwn, 1941. 86. 92. 96.; Kanonagirk’, 1964. 427. Palcean, 1878. 54.; Sanspeur, 1982. 151−153.

31

32

Historical Antecedents

Eutyches of Alexandria (380−456), the Founding-Father of Monophysitism.21 The national council also condemned the great leaders of the School of Antioch considered as the “hotbed” of Nestorianism, especially Theodore the Interpreter and the head of the Nestorian Church in Iran, Catholicos Barsauma of Syrian origin and declared that the Romans, the Greek, the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians share the same faith.22 This declaration was in fact in harmony with the Henotikon decree of Emperor Zeno issued in 484 when ruling the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Armenians could consider themselves as adherers of a unified church consensus that formed against the isolated Nestorians. The Henotikon was confirmed by many Armenian Councils held in Dwin even after Eastern Roman Emperor Justin I (518–527) rejected this teaching in 518.23 Between 551 and 555 the Armenian Apostolic Church got in touch with the Syrian Christian communities of Mesopotamia who, in opposition to the moderately Monophysite Patriarch (Saint) Severus the Great of Antioch (459−538), were followers of Julian of Halicarnassus and believed in the incorruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ before the he resurrection (Aphthartodocetae). After they were excommunicated by the followers of Severus, they turned to Nersēs II (Nersēs Bagrewandac’i) (548–557), Armenian Catholicos for help. The Catholicos accepted to ordain a bishop for them and at a council convoked in Dwin in 555 repudiated Monophysitism and Nestorianism and criticised the Tome (Tomus Leonis, Tumar Lewoni) of Pope Saint Leo the Great (440–461) and the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon. According to the National Council of Dwin held in 555, Pope Saint Leo I the Great and the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon re-habilitated Nestorianism.24 The Council of Dwin condemned Severus the Great of Antioch for proclaiming the corruptibility of the body of Jesus Christ as his teachings were interpreted by the Armenian Apostolic Church. Following this, the Armenian Catholicos supported the moderate version of the teachings of Julian of Halicarnassus for reasons of church-politics. One and a half century later the Armenian Apostolic Church re-defined their relationship with the teachings of Julian of Halicarnassus. At national councils held in Dwin and later in Manazkert in 718, 727 and 768 the

21 Sarkissian, 1975. 8–10. 12. 17–19. 196–213.; Talatinian, 1979. 96–106.; Maksoudian, 1982. 499.; Garsoïan, 1999. 173–178. 187–188. p.; Dorfmann-Lazarev, 2004. 148. 199.; Krikorian, 2003. 127−130. 22 Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 41. 48. 52. 55. 62. 70. 72–73. 76.; Sarkissian, 1975. 196.; Meyendorff, 2001. 143. 365. 23 Garitte,1952. 404–405. 24 Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 78–81. 84.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 70.; Sarkissian, 1975. 164–165. 180–195. 232–233.; Van Esbroeck, 1986. 301−318.; Garsoïan, 1992. 49–50. 73–74.; Garsoïan, 1999. 236–239.; Meyendorff, 2001. 362.

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages

Armenian Apostolic Church rejected and condemned the teachings of Julian of Halicarnassus and approved Orthodox dogmas while considering the approaches made by Constantinople as expansive attempts.25 Political factors played a major part in the changed standpoint of the Armenians. One of these was the question of national identity and survival and theological and cultural defence against the Nestorian Syriac Church (The Church of the East) officially supported by the Persian court. This uncertainty was caused by the ambiguous religious policy of the Byzantine court vis-a-vis the Armenians and the difficulty in understanding the vague terminology of Christological debates.26 Let us add here that the same problem came up with all nations whose mother tongue was not Greek.27 However, Constantinople did not accept that the Armenians have their separate ways. Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582–602) of Armenian origin after waging a war for many years signed for him a favourable peace treaty with the Sasanian Empire in 591.28 According to the agreement, the Byzantine Empire expanded its political power over almost all of Armenia. In the peace treaty River Azat was used as the border line between the two empires. However, the see of the Armenian Catholicos, Dwin remained under Sasanian rule close to the new border.29 Emperor Maurice convoked an ecumenical council in Theodosiopolis and invited the Armenian Catholicos Moses II (Movsēs Ełiwardec’i) (574–604) as well. The head of the Armenian Church, however, refused to attend with the following famous and infamous reply: “I will not cross River Azat to gobble on the bread baked by the Romans and to drink their hot water.”30 The majority of the Armenian bishops that lived on the Eastern Roman side of the river participated at the Council held in Theodosiopolis in 593 and elected John III (Yovhannēs Bagaranc’i) (593–614) as a new Armenian Anti-Catholicos whose seat was established in Awan, just across the River Azat opposite Dwin, the traditional see of the Armenian Catholicos.31 This is usually referred to as the first schism within the Armenian Church when, beside the Armenian Apostolic Church, a new Roman Armenian Church loyal to the Byzantine Empire was established. This schism within the Armenian Church divided Armenians for centuries. The

25 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 72–73. 86.; Sarkissian, 1975. 215.; Van Esbroeck, 1997. 578–585.; Mardirossian, 1998–2000. 117–134. 26 Vardan, 1862. 84–85.; Garitte, 1952. 228–229. 246. 264–265.; Mahé, 1994–1995. 435. 27 Garitte, 1952. 226–227.; Garsoïan, 1999. 241. 28 Adontz, 1970. 178–182.; Sebēos, 1979. 84.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 94.; Garsoïan, 1999. 266–267. 29 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 141.; Uxt’anēs, 1871. 54–65.; Garsoïan, 1999. 276. 30 Garitte, 1952. 226–227.; Meyendorff, 2001. 367–368. 31 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 143.; Garitte, 1952. 385–388.; Sarkissian, 1975. 21.; Sebēos, 1979. 86.

33

34

Historical Antecedents

establishment of the Armenian pro-Chalcedonian Church was accepted first by the Greek and later by the Latin Church and became one of the important reference points for Uniate re-catholicisation efforts. The schism within the Armenian Church that took place in 591 ended only in 611 when Persian (Sasanian) King Khosrow II (591–628) reconquered the Western Armenian territories with the help of the Armenian aristocracy and the Armenian Apostolic Church formerly occupied by the Byzantine Empire.32 The National Council in Dwin abrogated as one of its first decrees the schism of 591.33 Not long after this the Armenian clergy showed Governor (Marzpan) Smbat Bagratuni (ca. 595−602) a document in which they officially repudiated the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon and the Tomus Leonis. According to this document the Council of Chalcedon and the teachings of Pope Leo I the Great (440−461) served the interest of the Byzantine Empire and not the ecumenical church. Representatives of the church gave a similar document to the newly elected Catholicos, Abraham I (608–615) (Abraham Ałbat’aneci).34 These events must have led the Georgian Church to secede from the control of the Armenian Apostolic Church in 608. Originally the Georgian Church belonged under the church jurisdiction of the Patriarch in Antioch but for historical reasons it existed in symbiosis with the Armenian Apostolic Church since the beginning of the 4th century. According to Armenian sources the heads of the Georgian and the Caucasian Albanian Churches received the right to ordain bishops and archbishops from Armenian Catholicoi.35 When the schism in 608 took place Armenians blamed the “Georgian” Patriarch Kyrion I (595−610) (Kiwrion). Before his appointment, Kirion was presbyter of the Cathedral in Dwin ranked as a bishop and Catholicos Moses II ordained him as Catholicos of Georgia.36 Kyrion I studied theology in Nicopolis situated in the Eastern Roman Empire where he learnt both Greek and Latin. Most probably he adhered to the Orthodoxy of Constantinople. At the beginning of his career as a pontificate the Armenian Movses, Bishop of C’urtawi (Movsēs C’urtawc’i) accused him of entertaining too good relationship with Constantinople and the Nestorians.37 Therefore, the Arme-

32 Vardan, 1862. 59.; Garitte, 1952. 390–393.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 77.; Kałankatwac’i, 1983. 271.; Mahé, 1994–1995. 436.; Garsoïan, 1999. 270. 33 Garitte, 1952. 39–40.; Kanonagirk’, 1964. 475–490.; Drasaxanakertac’i, 1987. 250. 34 Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 53–54.; Sarkissian, 1964–1965. 108–119.; Sebēos, 1979. 91.; Zekiyan, 1982. 171.; Garsoïan, 1999. 265. 278. 282. 35 Zekiyan, 1981. 460−471. 36 Adontz, 1970. 102. 260–261.; Garsoïan, 1992. 70–72. 37 Asołik, 1885. 86.; Maksoudian, 1982. 500.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 96.; Garsoïan, 1999. 308.

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages

nian Apostolic Church did all they could to remove him from office because they considered his relationship to Constantinople “too friendly”.38 When the reconciliatory negotiations with Kyrion I failed Catholicos Abraham I excommunicated the Georgian Catholicos as well as the entire Georgian Church.39 As a consequence, Kyrion I also excommunicated the Armenians and accepted the nominal jurisdiction of Constantinople. As a reward, the Imperial Court, with the blessing of Byzantine Patriarch Thomas I (607−610), accorded autocephaly to the Georgian Church led by Kyrion I.40 In spite of the schism between the Armenian and Georgian churches the connection between the two churches remained.41 With the advent of Arabic rule, the Armenian Apostolic Church still held spiritual power to some extent over the Georgian church. This was partly due to the fact that between the 7th and the 10th centuries upon the Armenians’ intervention the Arabic invaders abolished the independent institution of Georgian Catholicosate.42 In the second third of the 7th century it looked as if Monothelitism (Ekthesis, Typos) could resolve the theological and Christological controversies between Constantinople (that is the Imperial Church) and the rest of the Monophysite churches as well as the “schismatic” Armenian Apostolic Church.43 Although Armenian sources did not detail whether the Armenian Apostolic Church officially endorsed this teaching but they were aware of its importance since they convoked a national council in Theodosiopolis in 631. Catholicos Ezra I (Ezr P’aŗažnakertac’i) (630–641) and Emperor Heraclius (610–641) present at the council officially proclaimed the political unification of the two churches.44 Unfortunately the documents of the Council of Theodosiopolis where the unification took place are lost. The Armenian Apostolic Church did not accord too much importance to the monotheletist doctrine. In fact, Armenians associated Monotheletism not with Emperor Heraclius but with the Council of Theodosiopolis. Emperor Heraclius’s attempt to reconcile with the Armenian Apostolic Church failed because especially the nobility and the lower clergy in Armenia strongly opposed a church-union with the Byzantine Imperial

38 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 138–140.; Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 153–160.; Melik’set–Bek, 1934. 52.; Garitte, 1952. 260–270.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 77. 39 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 146–147.; Vardan, 1862. 58.; Uxt’anēs, 1871. 1–136.; Asołik, 1885. 201–246.; Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 110–194.; Kałankatwac’i, 1983. 276–279.; Garsoïan, 1999. 307. 40 Tamarati, 1910. 239–240.; Zekiyan, 1982. 155–157.; Mahé, 1993. 510–513.; Mahé, 1996. 938–938.; Garsoïan, 1998. 70–71.; Garsoïan, 1999. 310–311. 41 Van Esbroeck, 1982. 186−199. 42 Tamarati, 1910. 227–248.; Kogean, 1961. 211–218. 43 Meyendorff, 2001. 427–479. 44 Asołik, 1885. 87–88.; Garitte, 1952. 278–311.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 78−79.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 98–100.; Mahé, 1993. 470.

35

36

Historical Antecedents

Church since they considered this doctrine disadvantageous for the Armenian Apostolic Church.45 According to the chronicle of Bishop Sebēos, Armenian historian in the 7th century, Emperor Constans II (641–668) sent a letter to Armenia in 648 in which he confirmed the church-union.46 In the response written during the Council of Dwin held in 649 neither the issue of Monotheletism or Monophysitism were touched upon. The Armenians, however, openly supported the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon and the Tomus Leonis. The representatives of the Armenian Apostolic Church criticised that the monotheletist teachings were not in line with the doctrines of the first three ecumenical councils that is they declared monotheletism heresy.47 They were forced to abandon their opinion soon when Emperor Constans II arrived in Armenia with an army. The Emperor forced the leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church to proclaim the unconditional church- and political-union with the church of the Eastern Roman Empire.48 This church-union, however, did not last long since Armenian aristocracy and the church accepted, as the lesser of two evils, the peace offer of the Arabic conquerors. Thus, Armenia became a vassal state of the Arabic empire in 653 and the forced church-union with the Byzantine Church was revoked.49 In 690, under the rule of Emperor Justinian II (685–695, 705–711), the Byzantine Empire conquered Armenia again for a short period and forced the Armenian Apostolic Church to accept a new church-union. Therefore, Catholicos Isaac III (Sahak Jorop’orec’i) (677–705) accompanied by a few bishops went to Constantinople where they accepted the doctrine of the Byzantine Imperial Church. On returning to Armenia, they immediately revoked their previous proclamation.50 Three decades later Saint Germanus I (715−730), Patriarch of Constantinople, reached out for the reconciliation with the Armenian Church but his attempt failed due to his deposal from his office in 730.51 During the 8th and 9th centuries under Arabic rule and in times of fervent iconoclasm the relationship of the two churches were stagnant.52

45 Garitte, 1952. 41–42. 337.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 78.; Mahé, 1993. 461–462.; Mahé, 1994–1995. 437.; Mahé, 1996. 932. 935.; Garsoïan, 1999. 387. 46 Sebēos, 1979. 131–132.; Maksoudian, 1982. 500.; Garsoïan, 1999. 390–392. 47 Sebēos, 1979. 166–167. 48 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 164.; Asołik, 1885. 116. 49 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 81.; Sebēos, 1979. 112–115.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 98.; Garsoïan, 1999. 389.; Greenwood, 2002. 323−397. 50 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 83. 51 Garitte, 1952. 350–356.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 83. 86.; Mahé, 1993. 492–495.; Mahé, 1994–1995. 437–438.; Mahé, 1996. 934. 52 Asołik, 1885. 89–91. 100–101. 110.; Adontz, 1965. 37–46.; Ter-Ghewondyan, 1976. 22–24.; Sebēos, 1979. 168.; Mahé, 1993. 473–486.; Garsoïan, 1997. 117–142.; Garsoïan, 1999. 394–409.

Attempts Made by Constantinople for the Church-Union in the Middle Ages

The relations between the two churches and the religious disputes gathered new momentum at the middle of the 9th century when Prince Ašot Bagratuni (ca. 820−890) became Commander-in-chief (Sparapet) of Armenia still under apparent Arabic rule.53 One of the results of his Byzantine oriented politics was that the dialogue between the two churches started about a possible political- and church-union. Due to the efficient diplomatic activities of Patriarch Photius I (858–867, 877–886), a national council was convoked in Širakawan (by another Armenian word Erazgawors), the capital of Armenia then. The council was headed by Catholicos Zachary I (Zak’aria Jagec’i) (855–877).54 The canons of the council concentrated on accepting the theses regarding the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon. These canons, however contradict to one another. For example, Canon 13 excommunicates everyone who believes that the Chalcedonian doctrine contradicts the teachings of the three ecumenical councils.55 Canon 14 of the council, however, excommunicates those who accept Chalcedon as well as the teachings of the Ecumenical Council’s Canon 5, 6, and 7.56 These teachings, in fact, served the power ambitions of the Bagratuni family who attempted to preserve the religious status quo in the Caucasus and looked for a solution in Transcaucasia for the integration of various Christian groups of diverse roots.57 A church-union of this kind with the silent support of the Byzantine Empire would have been in line with the politics of the Bagratuni family: to establish a unified Christian state in the Caucasus under the leadership of the dynasty provided there was religious tolerance.58 An agreement of this kind would have served well the interests of the Armenian high catholicoi for whom it offered the opportunity to become spiritual leaders of the Christians in the Transcaucasia region. The patriarchs of Constantinople seemed to accept this. Patriarch Saint Nicholas I (Nikolaos Mystikos) (901–907, 912–925) in a letter written to Armenian Catholicos John V, the Historian (899–928) (Yovhannēs Patmaban Drasxanakertac’i) in 915

53 Ōrbēlean, 1859. 213. 218.; Ayrivanec’i, 1860. 53.; Vardan, 1862. 78.; Asołik, 1885. 136.; Ganjakec’i, 1961. 78–79; Hakobyan, 1965. 273–282.; Akinean, 1968. 257–258.; Bartikian, 1971. 327.; Ter-Ghewondyan, 1976. 53–54.; Arcruni, 1985b. 231–235. 238.; Ananean, 1988. 7–39.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 123.; Dorfmann-Lazarev, 2004. 72. 54 Vardan, 1862. 82.; Anec’i, 1893. 94.; Grigor Magistros, 1910. 163.; Grumel, 1956. 169–173.; Ganjakec’i, 1961. 80.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 95–97.; Kałankatwac’i, 1983. 335.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 272–273.; Akinean, 1988. 7–41.; Ananean, 1989. 37–63.; Ananean, 1990. 7–23.; DorfmannLazarev, 2004. 56–57. 86. 55 Grigor Magistros, 1910. 163.; Garitte, 1952. 370–375.; Akinean, 1968. 257–258. 56 Asołik, 1885. 158.; Garitte, 1952. 372. 57 Palcean, 1878. 25. 202–203.; Kogean, 1961. 279.; Darrouzès, 1971. 138–139. 156. 58 Mahé, 1993. 510–513.

37

38

Historical Antecedents

considered the Armenian catholicoi as pontiffs of the Armenians, the Georgians, and the Albanians in the Caucasus.59 By the middle of the 10th century political fights put an end to the rapprochement of the two churches and thus the period of relative religious tolerance was also over. The relations between the two churches were deteriorated by the beginning of the 970s. Catholicos Vahan I (Vahan Siwnec’i) (967–970) desperately tried to normalise the relations between the two churches in vain. In fact, the strong anti-Byzantine party inside the Armenian Apostolic Church successfully overthrew Catholicos Vahan I at the national council in Ani.60 As a result of the Byzantine military occupation in 1045, forced conversion started in Armenia. In response to this, a significant number of Armenian clergy left the country. After the Battle of Manazkert (Manzikert) in 1071 tens of thousands of Armenians fled to Cilicia and Eastern Europe.61 This, however, did not mean that the Byzantine gave up the church-union with the Armenians. During the reign of Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180) the Cilician state temporarily got under Byzantine rule (1165–1180). Negotiations started up again which were ended by the death of the emperor. As a result of attempts to reach church-union the Armenian clergy proclaimed at the national Council of Hŗomklay in 1179 that for the sake of unity they would be ready to give up independence.62 The documents prepared at this council, however, never reached the Imperial City (Constantinople).63 In spite of this there was some understanding between the Armenian Catholicos Gregory IV (1173–1193) (Grigor Tłay) and Emperor Isaac I Angelus (1185–1195, 1203–1204) although this did not yield concrete results. Neither was the polemic of Nersēs Lambronac’i (1153−1198), the Armenian bishop of Tarsus held in Constantinople during his visit successful.64 The last attempt to stimulate relations between the two churches in the 14th century failed. Due to the growing Muslim influence the Armenian Apostolic Church was seeking to re-establish relations with Constantinople. However, their appeal was arrogantly received by Patriarch Isaias (1323–1332) who replied in a condescending manner which made it impossible to re-establish the contact.65

59 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 99.; Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 181–191.; Mahé, 1993. 514–515. 60 Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. 22. 189–191. 196.; Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980a. 47–50. 56–57. 68–70.; Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980b. 157–168.; Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1992. 463–477. 61 Lastiverc’i, 1963. 124. 132.; Bartikian, 1971. 327–340.; Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980a. 76–77. 81–82. 62 Kogean, 1961. 279.; Ŗošk’ay, 1964. 125.; Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980a. 173–176. 63 Bozoyan, 1995. 127–141. 64 Adontz, 1965. 46. 65 Maksoudian, 1982. 502.; Toumanoff, 1990. 89–90. 101.

Rome’s Efforts for Church-Union during the Middle Ages: The Church-Unions in Cilicia

Rome’s Efforts for Church-Union during the Middle Ages: The Church-Unions in Cilicia Having fled from the Armenian Motherland to Cilicia and being aware of the conflict between the Latin and the Greek churches, Armenian aristocracy and clergy were trying to establish connections with Rome. Contacts were made between the Roman and the Armenian churches right after the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia was established. In a letter written to Catholicos Gregory II, the Martyrophile (1065–1105) (Surb Grigor Vkayasēr), Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085) raised the issue of a church-union in spite of the differences in terms of theology, Christology and liturgy.66 A positive change occurred in the relations between Rome and the Armenian Apostolic Church due primarily to political reasons. According to Latin sources, Byzantine influence upon Cilicia and the death of Prince Leo I (1129–1141) of the Rubenid dynasty led the Armenian Church to accept the supremacy of Rome for political reasons and to adjust to the Latin liturgical practice. Contact between the Roman Catholic and the Armenian Churches at the end of the 12th century should be seen in the context of the Cilician, Byzantine and Muslim conflicts. Pope Lucius III (1181–1185) for example granted concessions to the Armenian Apostolic Church because the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia provided considerable military and financial aid to the Crusader states. The cordial diplomatic and church relations reached their peak in 1191 when Conrad of Wittelsbach (ca. 1120−1200), Archbishop of Mainz, crowned the Armenian King Leo the Great (1191–1219) (Lewon Mec). At the occasion of the coronation ceremony, King Leo I officially accepted the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church.67 Relations, however, became rather tense in the second half of King Leo I’s reign since the Armenian king got into a conflict with the Apostolic Holy See due to the Antiochene War of Succession. The conflict, in the end, led to King Leo I’s excommunication in 1211. Relations between the two churches were unfavourably impacted by the fact that Rome insisted on reforming the Armenian rites and requested the Armenian Apostolic Church to adopt the Latin ones. The Armenian considered this as an insult to their “national” rites.68 The Catholicoi, whose seat was in Cilicia, made efforts to keep good relations with Rome up until the demise of the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia. This was especially true after 1293 when the See of the Catholicos was transferred from Hŗomklay to Sis since it was safer from incursions of the Mamluks. In Sis, however, the royal court could exercise more influence on the Armenian Apostolic Church.69 66 67 68 69

Galanus, 1661. 438.; Atamian, 1983. 394.; Ananean, 1992. 7–30. Ōrmanean, 1960. 1230–1258. Tekeyan, 1939. 21–58.; Atamian, 1983. 394. Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 353–354.

39

40

Historical Antecedents

The Catholicoi often could not stand up against the king’s will since the clergy almost always had reservations about the “pro-Rome” politics of the royal court that was favourable to a church-union. In return the king expected military help from the pope for the fight against the Muslim expansion.70 Several attempts were made to reconcile the two churches. An example for this was Nersēs Lambronac’i, Bishop of Tarsus who, as a true believer of ecumenical faith, tried to reconcile the Armenian Apostolic Church and the pro-Chalchedonian Greek and the pro-Chalcedonian Latin Church. Unfortunately, his efforts were unsuccessful. In fact, upon his initiative, the Armenian Apostolic Church formally accepted the church-union with Rome in Tarsus in 1198.71 The church-union, however, was not very popular since the members of the Armenian Apostolic Church considered it as if it entailed complete primacy of the Pope in Rome and the acceptance of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. The so-called Romanisation reform initiated by the royal court and the modification of the Armenian liturgical practice created a series of conflicts between the royal court and the Armenian clergy both in Cilicia and the Armenian Motherland. The clergy resisted any reforms that brought about drastic changes in the Armenian Apostolic Church. The conservative clergy, that was placing national interest in the foreground more and more, saw in these attempts the impairment of the interest of the national church. The pressure for Romanisation coming from the royal court was so high that resistance could only be made by the church of the Motherland (Armenia) that was under foreign rule. One of the key figures of the resistance was Step’anos Ōrbēlean (1255–1304), a chronicler, a theologian, and an Archbishop of Province Siwnik’ in the Armenian Motherland in the second half of the 13th century.72 During this period Rome exerted its influence through the royal court. The popes of the Roman Catholic Church demanded the recognition of the primacy of Rome, the unconditional acceptance of the teachings of the first four ecumenical councils and the endorsement of the phrase Filioque procedit (ew błxi yOrdwoyn) of the Nicene Creed. Furthermore, it was also requested that the Armenian adopt the Western calendar (e.g.: Christmas would be transferred from January 6th to December 25th ), and remove the sentence from the Trisagium (Trisagion) hymn in the Armenian liturgy “who was crucified for us (or xač’ec’ar vasn mer)” that had been added by the monophysitists. They also forbade in Eucharist the mixing of sacramental wine with water.73

70 71 72 73

Arpee, 1946. 140–148.; Atamian, 1983. 394. Kogean, 1981. 26–31.; Papadakis–Meyendorff, 2002. 171–174. Arpee, 1946. 149–164. Atamian, 1983. 395.

Rome’s Efforts for Church-Union during the Middle Ages: The Church-Unions in Cilicia

The peak of Latinisation in Cilician Kingdom of Armenia occurred from the 13th century to the middle of the 14th century. That was the period when Franciscan and Dominican missionaries were active in the country. Giovanni da Montecorvino OFM (1247−1328), a Franciscan Father, arrived at the court of King Het’um II (1289–1302) in 1289 whose main mission was to initiate talks on the churchunion of the two churches. Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) gave this his support in his letter written to Catholicos Gregory VII (1290–1293) (Grigor Anawarjec’i) according to which Armenian high clergy should recognise the primacy of Rome. Following long talks at Armenian national councils convoked in Sis in 1308 and in Adana in 1316, the high clergy of Cilicia present at the synods as well as the nobility officially accepted to submit the Armenian Apostolic Church to the Roman Catholic Church and adopt its teachings and liturgy.74 Due to this and based on the church-union in Cilicia, several Armenian communities in Italy recognised the primacy of Rome and got directly under papal protection. On the other hand, Armenian high priest and theologians from the Motherland decidedly rejected the concessions made to Rome. Therefore, Rome took steps to counter-balance the strong opposition of the Armenian Motherland as can be detected in Pope John XXII (1316–1334)’s letter written to the dioceses in Armenia in which he asked the Armenian high priest to support the church-union of the two churches. The talks could continue due to the widespread missionary activities of the Dominicans (Fratres Uniatores) as well as graces and privileges (e.g.: fiefdom within the papal state granted to the members of the royal court). The church-union provoked strong reactions in Cilicia as well. Back in 1222 Philip, Prince Bohemond IV’s son married Isabel (Zabēl), the daughter of Armenian king Leo I and by this soon he also secured the Armenian throne for himself and became joint sovereign. In part due to the intervention of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the following year Philip was removed from the throne and got imprisoned since he stood by the unconditional recognition of the papal primacy over Armenia.75 In the same year the Latin-rite bishops of the towns of Mamistra and Tarsus were expelled from the kingdom.76 Later a serious conflict broke out regarding the application of the calendar within the Armenian Apostolic Church. The issue centred around whether Easter (Zatikn, Yarut’iwn Surb) and Pentecost (Hambarjumn Surb) should be celebrated according to the Latin or the traditional Armenian calendar. The Armenian priests who did not adopt the Latin rites and insisted on keeping the Armenian traditions were imprisoned or exiled.77

74 75 76 77

Van den Oudenrijn, 1956. 94–112. Ōrmanean, 1960. 1816–1825. Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 290–291. Ōrmenean, 1960. 1784–1793.

41

42

Historical Antecedents

Tension between the two churches was mounting at the beginning of the 14th century, too. The activities of the “pro-Latin” party as well as the influence of the Dominicans resulted in growing dislike which strengthened the opposition within the church. On the other hand, the papal court was still not satisfied with the reaction of the Armenian Apostolic Church concerning Rome’s demands in terms of liturgy and dogma.78 Tensions mounted even more when Pope Gregory IX (1370–1378) ordered in one of his letters that the Armenians who recognised the church-union had to be baptised again and the Uniate Armenian priests should be ordained again according to the Roman Catholic rites. This caused many Armenians to repudiate the church-union.79 In 1344 the anti-union party killed King Guy I (Lusignan, Lusinean) (1331–1344) of French origin and took the power until the fall of the Cilician Kingdom in 1375. Armenian sources stated with some exaggeration that the last six Armenian Catholicoi in Cilicia led pro-Latin church politics and that was why members of the church opposition poisoned them. In spite of this, Rome continued the same politics favouring church-union and offered military help in the more and more hopeless fight against the Mamluk Empire, in return for the church-union. In 1374 the Armenians who supported the church-union temporarily got the upper hand and elected Leo IV (1374–1393) (Lewon) of the Lusignan dynasty as a king. He was to be the last king of the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia because Mamluks occupied Cilicia in the following year and King Leo IV fled to Cyprus. Despite this, the pro-union party within the church kept their position.80

The Effects of the Council of Ferrara-Florence on the Armenian Apostolic Church The relationship of the Council of Ferrara-Florence with the Armenian Apostolic Church has been debated for long. The outcome of the talks with the Orthodox (Byzantine rite) Greek Church is well-known. It is, however, less known what results the talks brought for the Armenian Apostolic Church. After the failed church-unions and the fall of the feudal state, the Roman Catholic Church continued his ecumenical politics for a new church-union. The attempt to revive church-union was kept alive because there was always a small group within the Armenian Apostolic Church, made up of a few members of the high priest, who was determined to recognise church-union. A part of the high priest saw the

78 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 143–144. 79 Zek’iyan, 2000. 106–127. 80 Tournbize, 1900. 320–337.; Atamian, 1983. 395.

The Effects of the Council of Ferrara-Florence on the Armenian Apostolic Church

key to national survival in the church-union: since they knew that their nation and church were surrounded by a Muslim sea. The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia ceased to exist in 1375 their liege lords were Muslim princes then. Therefore, some of the high priest considered church-union as a last resort. Naively they hoped that the church-union would bring them considerable political and military help from the Christian West in their war of independence waged against the Muslims even if this stance divided the Armenian Apostolic Church in several respects. During the Council of Ferrara-Florence the Armenian Apostolic Church was headed by a proto-Latin Catholicos, Constantine VI (1429–1439) (Konstandin Vahkac’i). As soon as the Catholicos heard about the council he sent two of his scholar priests (vardapets), Sargis and Markos, to start the ecumenical talks with the Roman Church for the church-union. The two priests went from Cilicia through Kaffa and Pera to Florence. In Kaffa a Uniate Armenian monk of the Dominican order named Basil while in Pera a proto-Rome Armenian bishop, Hyacinthus (Yiak’intos) joined them.81 On the other hand, The Roman Catholic Church also sent out invitations. Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) invited the catholicos for the talks on church reunion first in 1433 and then in 1437.82 The Armenian delegation arrived in Florence in August 1439 where they met the pope right away. They saluted the pope as the head of the ecumenical Christian church - their intention for a church-union could not have been expressed more clearly.83 The delegation set about conducting the talks on the church-union without further delay and after three months’ exhausting work completed the churchunion agreement. The document entitled Decretum pro Armenis was sent to the Roman Pope. The Armenians proclaimed the church-union in the Santa Maria Novella Church of the Dominican Order in Florence on November 22nd , 1439.84 The Armenian priests present in the church building solemnly re-affirmed the decree.85 This document in fact took the decrees of previous church-union talks and the main points of the Uniate councils in Sis and Adana as its basis and stated the primacy of the Roman Pope. Furthermore, the Armenians adopted the Roman version of the Creed along with Filioque procedit, accepted the existence of Purgatory

81 Balgy, 1883. 88.; Hofman, 1939. 151. 155.; Gill, 1959. 305.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 156.; Petrowicz, 1971. 52.; Gündisch, 1975. 25. 82 Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 474. 83 Hofman, 1935. 20.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 156.; Petrowicz, 1971. 52. 84 Hofman, 1939. 158. 161. 85 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 156.

43

44

Historical Antecedents

and proclaimed Monophysitism as false doctrine.86 The church-union agreement did not touch upon questions such as the remuneration of future Uniate Armenian priest or their marriage. After this Bishop Hyacinthus, Father Basil, Vardapets Serge and Marcus left Florence and returned to their country. The church-union, however, was not reconfirmed by the Armenian Apostolic Church because at the end of 1439 Catholicos Constantine VI in favour of the church-union died. His death prompted a two-year feud among the church leaders for the catholicos position. In Cilicia, those in favour of the church-union were ab ovo in minority but most of the anti-union Cilician church leaders got also into conflict with the clergy in the (Armenian) Motherland because these latter ones intended to transfer the seat of the catholicos back to Armenia.87 A separate question arises: what role did the Armenians of Lviv (Lwów/Lemberg/ L’vov/Leopolis) play at the Council of Ferrara-Florence? Pope Eugene IV sent official invitations not only to the Armenian Catholicos but also to Grigor Nasredinean II (1415–1440), who was Archbishop of Lviv of Armenian Apostolic Church rites who was considered a close ally of Catholicos Constantine VI and one of the leading personalities of the church-union party.88 The Roman Catholic Church knew that Lviv was the religious and cultural centre of the biggest Armenian Diaspora in Europe. When sending out the invitations, the pope must have been motivated to call the Armenian Archbishop of Lviv of good reputation because he thought it may have a favourable influence upon the clergy both in the Armenian Motherland and in Cilicia to sign the churchunion agreement. This is reinforced by the fact that Pope Eugene IV had correct information regarding the influence Archbishop of Lviv had within the Armenian Apostolic Church and the excellent connections he kept with the Armenian clergy both in Cilicia and in the Armenian Motherland. According to some scholars Archbishop Grigor Nasredinean II may have participated in the church-union talks in Florence and met the Armenian delegation separately. He may even have played a part in wording the document entitled as Decretum pro Armenis.89 However, no source proves that he indeed attended the council although a document dated 1781 was found in Lviv, which proves that there was an Armenian delegation from Lviv at the synod.90

86 Tournbize, 1900. 369.; De Guibert, 1919. 81–95. 150–162. 195–215.; Hofman, 1939. 165–169.; Petrowicz, 1971. 53. 87 Hofman, 1939. 173–176. 88 Obertyński, 1934. 44. 89 Obertyński, 1934. 12.; Hofman, 1935. 50.; Petrowicz, 1971. 54. 90 Obertyński, 1934. 24.

The Effects of the Council of Ferrara-Florence on the Armenian Apostolic Church

From this document we can learn that the archbishop sent two of his people whose names we do not know - to Florence with the clear intention to help proclaim the church-union of the Armenian Apostolic Church.91 Although there is a serious chronological mistake in the document as it put 1429 instead of 1439 but it does not change the fact that the Armenian Archbishop of Lviv through his delegates indirectly played a role in negotiating upon the church-union. Pope Eugene IV informed Wladislaus of Varna III (1434–1444), King of Poland. The king was happy to learn that his Armenian subjects converted to the Roman Catholic faith and congratulated Pope Eugene IV for convincing the Armenians in Poland.92 At first sight the church-union brought advantages to the Armenians as in 1440 the king reconfirmed and enlarged their commercial and local government privileges.93 Pope Eugene IV informed the great powers of Europe of the Armenian churchunion that took place in Florence and emphasised the fact that the Eastern churches of the greatest authority also recognised the church-union.94 Beyond this, the Armenian church-union had an important consequence: The Armenian community living in Kaffa also officially proclaimed the church-union. In achieving this, the Armenian delegate of Kaffa played a major part. The Uniate Congregation of Fratres Uniatores that had been active in Kaffa since the middle of the 14th century also had been influential in the Armenian community of Crimea thus preparing them for the church-union. The pope issued a decree entitled as Decisiones pro Dioecesi Armena Caffensi for the Armenians of Kaffa on December 15th , 1439 in which he strictly forbade the Latin rite priests to insult the Armenians and to re-baptise the converted Uniate Armenians.95 Lastly, we must ask the question: what results did the church-union of FerraraFlorence bring for the Armenian Apostolic Church? The simplest and most acute reply would be that in fact it did not bring any results, but this would be too simple to say. In Armenia, the clergy was not overjoyed at the news of the Council of FerraraFlorence because the members of the church regarded it as giving up their national sovereignty. Concerning the church-union, they accused the Armenian Catholicos who had his seat in Cilicia that all he did was to yield slavishly to the Latin and the Greek Churches. Therefore, they decided to pressurise the Cilicians and demanded that the seat of the Catholicoi be transferred to Armenia. If they kept residing in

91 92 93 94 95

Obertyński, 1934. 24.; Hofman, 1935. 52.; Petrowicz, 1971. 57. Hofman, 1944. 143. p.; Petrowicz, 1971. 58. Bischoff, 1864. 16–19. Obertyński, 1934. 45.; Gill, 1959. 308. Obertyński, 1934. 44.; Hofman, 1935. 47.

45

46

Historical Antecedents

Cilicia, then Armenian Catholicoi would remain under the thumb of both the Latin and the Greek Churches.96 The church-union was never recognised due to the untimely death of Catholicos Constantine VI. His successor, Catholicos Gregory IX (1439–1441) (Grigor Musabēgean) was a great supporter of the church-union which he tried to reconfirm in his letter written in Latin to the Pope in Cairo on September 4th, 1440.97 However, the new Catholicos had to face problems of legitimacy since the clergy in the Motherland did not recognise him as Catholicos since he was in favour of the church-union. In 1441 a synod to elect a Catholicos was convoked in Armenia where Cyriacus I (1441–1443) (Kirakos Virapec’i) was elected as the Catholicos of All Armenians (Amenayn Hayoc’ Kat’ołikos). The newly elected Catholicos did not recognise Gregory IX and was a sworn opponent to the church-union and repudiated the decrees of the Council of Ferrara-Florence.98 Catholicos Cyriacus I sent an ultimatum to the clergy in Cilicia and threatened to excommunicate them if they recognized the Ferrara-Florence church-union and if they did not consider null Gregory IX’s election as a catholicos. The clergy in Cilicia found themselves at a prickly choice: they either deposed Gregory IX, and recognise Cyriacus I, or they kept siding with Catholicos Gregory IX who favoured the Latin Church and the church-union which would risk schism.99 Gregory IX’s untimely death in 1444 somewhat facilitated the choice. After this the clergy in Cilicia pushed the “party favouring the Latin Church” in the background but refused to recognise Cyriacus I of the Armenian Motherland. Instead of the Armenians of Cilicia elected the anti-union Karapet I (1446–1478) (Karapet Sisc’i) as a Catholicos of the Armenians. The election of the head of the church in Cilicia, far from resolving the conflicts, brought the Armenians near the abyss of schism. The dramatic situation was worsened by the two catholicoi who mutually excommunicated each other. The reason for this was that the clergy in Cilicia did not want to return to Armenia knowing that they enjoyed no support among the Armenians living in the Motherland. The Roman Catholic Church knew nothing of the Armenian schism then and considered the Armenian Catholicos residing in Cilicia as the Uniate head of church.100 The situation was different in Kaffa situated on the Crimean Peninsula where the entire Armenian community accepted the church-union. The Uniate monk, Father Basil of Kaffa who participated at the Council of Ferrara-Florence even started missionary work one of the tangible results of which was the conversion of Mkrtič’ 96 97 98 99 100

Mesrop Vardapet, 1957. 181–182. Hofman, 1939. 176–177.; Petrowicz, 1971. 59. Maksoudian, 1982. 501. Dawrižec’i, 1896. 418–419. Hofman, 1939. 184.; Petrowicz, 1971. 59–60.

The Effects of the Council of Ferrara-Florence on the Armenian Apostolic Church

Nałaš, Armenian Archbishop of Tigranakert (Diyarbakir, Turkey) to the Roman Catholic faith. The Armenian Uniate Church in Crimea was flourishing until 1475 when the Muslims occupied Kaffa. Then most of the Armenians were relocated from the Crimea to Constantinople where many of them returned to the Armenian Apostolic Church. A smaller part of the Uniate Armenians settled down in Pera.101 As for the Armenians in Lviv after the proclamation of the church-union there were interesting developments in this regard. Archbishop Grigor Nasredinean II, when learning about the church-union from his delegates, set about right away to get the church-union recognised by the entire Armenian community in Poland.102 Even though he received strong political support from the Polish royal court and the church he did not have an easy job.103 Due to the lack of sources it is impossible to find out what controversies took place within their community regarding the proclamation of the church-union. In any case, the pope was informed of the efforts made by Archbishop Grigor Nasredinean II for the church-union.104 In spite of this, however, the church-union failed since the archbishop died in 1440 and Lviv could not remain uninfluenced by the decisive changes that were taking place in the Armenian Motherland and in Cilicia. The successor to Archbishop Grigor Nasredinean II, Awedik Ilovc’i (1440–1460) was an adamant opponent of the church-union and could rely upon the support of the clergy in the Armenian Motherland since he was appointed by Catholicos Cyriacus I.105 Thus Lviv was in opposition to Cilicia. The Council of Ferrara-Florence was unsuccessful from the point of view of the Armenians because none of the catholicoi recognised it officially or sanctified the unification agreement, not even the ones who originally had been willing to support the church-union. In 1439 no considerable power rallied behind the Armenian Catholicoi who would have unconditionally accepted the church-union. In conclusion, in the Middle Ages, the controversial relations the Armenian Apostolic Church had with the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were in general explained by Monophysitism. The national councils of the Armenian Apostolic Church firmly rejected Monophysitism that proclaimed the one, divine nature of Jesus (mone physis) as well as its followers such as Abbot Euthyches and Severus the Great, Patriarch of Antioch. At the same time, the Armenian Apostolic Church was divided because the bishops of the Western provinces were under the control of Constantinople and several of them participated at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon and accepted the dogmas of the ecumenical synod. On the 101 102 103 104 105

Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 483–484.; Hofman, 1939. 179–182. Obertyński, 1934. 44.; Petrowicz, 1971. 60. Halecki, 1958. 55–59. Obertyński, 1934. 44–45. Ališan, 1896b. 134.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 157.; Petrowicz, 1971. 61.; Puskás, 2006. 23.

47

48

Historical Antecedents

other hand, the bishops of the bigger Eastern region where the seat of the Armenian catholicos was and from where bigger contingencies of Armenians kept moving to the Eastern Roman Empire or to the Byzantine Empire as it was later called, these bishops could not participate at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon because of their active participation in the uprising in 449. Therefore, they were unable to do much about the affairs of the Ecumenical Church. Armenia received a distorted description of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, therefore they believed that Nestorianism, that proposed the Greek term Christotokos (Christbearer) as a more suitable title for the Virgin Mary, was rehabilitated at the synod while Armenians were hostile to Nestorianism since it was supported by Sasanian (Persian) policy that tried to turn the Nestorians against the Armenian Apostolic Church. Contemporary Armenian public opinion between the 7th and 12th centuries were markedly anti-Byzantine because they believed Constantinople as a Christian ally had let the Armenians down several times in their wars fought against the pagan Persians, Arabs and Seljuk-Turks. In Armenian chronicles this anti-Byzantine (and anti-Rome) stance emerged and crystallised especially from the 7th century on and it, at times, turned into open revolt against what the Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon stood for even if the Armenian Apostolic Church at their national synods did not openly opposed Chalcedonism and repudiated the Monophysite doctrines.106 Since the 7th century topoi and stereotypes formed due to the religious controversies, Byzantines and Armenians called one another traitor, apostate, heretic and atheist. These charges were later adopted by Rome as well. The Armenian Apostolic Church is closely related to the birth of the liturgical language and literature which greatly contributed to the Armenian ethnic identity and survival.107 During the rule of the Macedonian Dynasty (866–1056) in Byzantium, that was presumably of Armenian origin, Armenians settled down within the Byzantine Empire in great numbers. At the same time by the middle of the 11th century historical Armenia was little by little integrated into the Byzantine Empire and the independent Armenian state ceased to exist. The Byzantine Empire did all they could to integrate the Armenians both politically and confessionally. However, Constantinople was unable to defend the newly annexed territories from the Seljuk. After the Battle of Manazkert in 1071 historical Armenia got under the protection of the Seljuk which initiated another wave of refugees going North or South. The remaining aristocracy, high priest headed by the Catholicos settled down in Cilicia and established a state there in 1085.

106 Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. 177–183.; Arpee, 1946. 56–75.; Mesrop Vardapet, 1957. 96–121. 152–156.; Sarkissian, 1975. 7–42. 196–213.; Ōrmanean, 1993. 59–75. 107 Papadakis–Meyendorff, 2002. 166.

The Church in the Armenian Motherland and the Issue of the Church-Union in the Early Modern Period

One should not forget about the fact that by 15th century Armenia had become but a geographical name. In fact, in a political sense medieval Armenia started to disintegrate already in the first half of the 11th century. The Byzantine occupation (1045) that came after the power struggles of the political elite, followed by the Seljuk-Turkish rule, then the Georgian annexation (1204), as well as the invasions of the Mongols, Turkmens and Ottoman Turks made a deep impact on Armenian history. The ethnic composition of the region changed since other ethnic groups settled down there. Invasions, religious persecutions, the continuing depopulation of the ancient Armenian territories as well as the mass exodus of the Armenians to Eastern Europe (Crimea, Poland and Moldavia) or to Diasporas in Cilicia, Asia Minor, and the Middle East radically changed in the Motherland the proportions of the Christian Armenian original population and the Muslims. The inflow of nomad Seljuk-Turks, Turkmens, Kurds and Ottoman Turks into a region that had been a Christian region resulted in mixed population. In this obscure political situation, only the Armenian Apostolic Church could hold up the appearance of unity.108 In our view, the reasons for the failed church-unions attempted by both Constantinople and Rome can be found in the fact that the church leaders of the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Catholicoi always stated themselves as the true followers of the Holy Scriptures and the early church-fathers. Dogmatically they always took a very conservative stance and, in each attempt to reach church-union, they saw the national traditions, kept alive by the Armenian Apostolic Church, put in danger. In general, they rejected any new concepts and formulas or interpretations of the church. The traditions and dogmas of the Armenian Apostolic Church that developed between the 4th and the 6th centuries became an integral part of the Armenian national identity. Maybe this is what explains the abovementioned conservative standpoint that interpreted any external influence, attempt at a church-union both from the part of Constantinople and Rome a betrayal of the Armenian Apostolic Church and nation. With a few exceptions, this thinking remained present within the Armenian Apostolic Church until the dawn of the early modern period.

The Church in the Armenian Motherland and the Issue of the Church-Union in the Early Modern Period The Armenian Apostolic Church experienced one of the worst crises in its history during the early modern period. Catholicoi became political puppets in the hands of local Muslim emirs. Furthermore, divisions increased. In 1461 Sultan Mehmet II

108 Ibid.

49

50

Historical Antecedents

(1432−1481) the Conqueror, commonly known as Mehmed the Conqueror, in response to the pressure exercised by the Armenian communities living in the Ottoman Empire, out of the bishopric of Brussa, established the Armenian Patriarchy of Constantinople, the patriarch of which considered himself the head of the church of all Armenians. The Archbishop of Ałt’amar in the island of Lake Van in Anatolia had also called himself catholicos since 1459. This new division made things even worse.109 During the 16th century in times of the Ottoman-Persian wars Armenia was divided. In 1514, Sultan Selim I (1512–1520), commonly called The Grim, defeated the Persian (Safavid) army in the Battle of Chaldiran (1514) and thus brought the regions beyond the Caucasus under Ottoman rule. The bigger part of the Armenian territory was under Ottoman-Turk control while the smaller one along with Karabagh Province belonged to the Safavid Persian Empire.110 During the 16th and 17th centuries Armenian catholicoi represented the interests of the Armenians both with the Ottoman court and the Safavid (Persian) Shahs.111 One of the most important jobs they had was to collect the yearly taxes from each individual and to transport the taxes to the Ottoman and the Persian courts. From the national and cultural points of view the Armenian Apostolic Church kept the Armenian population together. In response to the political divisions, contacts were sought again with the Western Christian states because the historical legend from the times of the Cilician Kingdom of Armenia was still alive among the Armenians that it would be the Western Christian church and the Western rulers who would save Armenia from Ottoman rule. At the middle of the 16th century, the idea of church-union with the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed great support.112 The Council of Trent (Concilium Tridentinum) (1545–1563) did not limit itself to the challenges of the Reformation. Church leaders paid serious attention to the Eastern churches they considered schismatic and heretic. The Roman Catholic Church intended to unite the old Eastern churches under the primacy of the Apostolic Holy See. Furthermore, Rome wanted to position itself as the defender of the Eastern Christians who lived in the “pagan” Ottoman Empire. By the 1540s the news of the Council of Trent reached Armenia. This prompted Catholicos Stephen V (1542–1552) (Step’anos Salmastec’i) to leave his See in Ēǰmiacin and to go to Rome and Trent to request help from the West.113 The Armenian Church saw political rather than dogmatic-union in the church-union. They understood that if the talk centred about dogma and theology then the attempt was bound to fail the way it 109 110 111 112 113

Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 158−161. Kouyumjian, 1994. 9−18. Ōrmanean, 1960. 2287–2290. Akinean, 1954. 141–154.; Zulalyan, 1980. 135−175. Petrowicz, 1971. 87–88.

The Church in the Armenian Motherland and the Issue of the Church-Union in the Early Modern Period

did with the different Cilician church-unions. Catholicos Stephen V was hoping for a political opportunity and did not want to dwell on theological discussions especially not ones about the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon or the issue of Jesus Christ’s human or divine nature. Catholicos Stephen V arrived in Rome in 1548 via Lviv and held discussions with Pope Paul III (1534–1549) about the church-union. The talks seemed to be successful, Stephen V expressed his intention to conclude the church-union with Rome, but no concrete steps of the union were set forth. The Roman Pope promised to intervene with the European monarchs for the Armenians for military and financial help. As it is well-known this was not possible under the given circumstances. On the other hand, Pope Paul III invited Catholicos Stephen V to visit Trent and present his views regarding the church-union there.114 In the meantime, Pope Paul III died, and the head of the Armenian Church stayed in Rome. The new pope, Julius III (1550–1555), similarly to his predecessor, held cordial discussions with Catholicos Stephen V and renewed the invitation to the Council of Trent. The Armenian catholicos arrived at the synod in April 1551 where his speech was well received since Stephen V talked about the goals of the Armenian church-union and the circumstances of the Armenian people in excellent Latin.115 Catholicos Stephen V’s visit and speech made a very good impression in the bishops and theologians at the synod but nothing concrete resulted, only the question of the church-union of the Armenian Apostolic Church was raised.116 Stephen V returned to Armenia in 1552 without any promises for help. The Catholicos meant to reach Armenia through Lviv but there he fell ill and died soon after that.117 Stephen V made a promise during his visit in Rome that missionaries of the Roman Catholic faith can settle down and be active within historical Armenia. Due to the Catholicos’s visit at the Apostolic Holy See, the mission of the Roman Catholic Church became a fact at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries: Franciscans, Theatines, Augustinians, Carmelites, Dominicans and Jesuits did missionary work among the Armenians. There were not only dogmatic and theological but also political reasons for receiving missionaries. The Armenian provinces, situated between two Islam empires, were waiting for help from the West to free them from foreign rule. Therefore, a part of the higher clergy seemed ready for a church-union with Rome.118 This is shown by the popularity of the prophecy found in Armenian apocrypha documents of doubtful origin according to which the Armenian Apostolic Church would be freed from the embrace of Islam by the 114 115 116 117 118

Ališan, 1896a. 324–326. Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 517.; Petrowicz, 1971. 90–91. Sarpi, 1699. 653–654. Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 164.; Petrowicz, 1971. 95.; Mutafian, 2018. 201−205. Akinean, 1936. 37–39. 322.

51

52

Historical Antecedents

Western „Franc” churches.119 The Armenian Apostolic Church, due to its internal conflicts, could not oppose the Catholic missions. The Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople who acted as head of all Christians living in the Ottoman Empire also made efforts to convert the Armenians. In general, the missionary activities of the Greek failed one after the other. The obvious reason for this was the theological controversies between the two churches that had lasted for centuries during which the patriarchate of Constantinople had confronted the Armenian Apostolic Church they considered heretic.120 At the beginning of the 17th century the Armenian Apostolic Church was headed by two catholicoi at the same time: David V (1587–1629) (Dawit’ Vałaršapatec’i) and Melkizedek (1593–1626) (Melk’isēt’ Gar.nec’i). From the point of view of churchunion, Melkizedek of a contradictory personality is of utmost importance.121 First the legitimate head of the Armenian Apostolic Church was David V, but he was accused, by the Ottoman and Persian authorities, of corruption when collecting tax. On the other hand, Armenian chronicles stressed the importance Melkizedek, Bishop of Gaŗni and of Catholicos David V’s Legate (nwirak) in the Sultan’s court, played before his appointment as the head of the church, in the dwindling of the power of the Catholicos.122 Of course, being the head of the church did not just mean spiritual but also economic power since during tax collection considerable sums were paid in the treasury of the Catholicos who often was tempted to use a certain percentage of these taxes for private purposes.123 The feud between the two catholicoi was interrupted for a short time by the Ottoman-Persian war between 1603 and 1604 when the Persian Shah Abbas I the Great (1588−1629) occupied huge territories from the Ottoman Empire, among others the central regions of Armenia, Naxiǰewan and the Ararat Plain.124 For fear of a possible counter-offensive of the Ottoman, Shah Abbas I sent the population of the newly occupied territories, about 350,000 Armenians to settle down in Persia.125 A part of the clergy within the Armenian Apostolic Church greeted the Persian troops as liberators and swore loyalty to the Persian shah. Melkizedek was among them and was appointed catholicos by the shah.126 Catholicos David V did not accept this decision and referred to the fact that Melkizedek withheld the collected

119 120 121 122 123 124 125

Galanus, 1661. 329. Ōrmanean, 1993. 108. Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 168. Dawrižec’i, 1896. 54–55.; Schütz, 1987. 268. Ōrmanean, 1993. 95–101. Pat’mut’yun, 1972. 116. Patmut’yun, 1972. 99.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 253.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 168–169.; Schütz, 1987. 260–262.; Schütz, 1988. 50–66. 126 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 206.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 168–169.

The Church in the Armenian Motherland and the Issue of the Church-Union in the Early Modern Period

taxes. He also accused Melkizedek of selling the relics of Armenian martyrs to the “heretic” Latin priests.127 Shah Abbas I kept David V in house arrest until his death and considered Melkizedek the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Shah Abbas I appointed Catholicos David V as the spiritual leader of the Armenians settled down in Persia and made sure that David V remained under strict control.128 Melkizedek contacted Rome before his appointment in 1602. In his letter written to the Apostolic Holy See, he offered to join Rome with his church and congregations provided the Roman Catholic Church recognised him as the Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church.129 Eight years later in 1610, he sent a letter with his confidant, Vardapet Zachary in which Melkisedek sworn loyalty to Rome and on behalf of the Armenian Apostolic Church declared a confession of faith to the Apostolic Holy See.130 In spring 1613 Vardapet Zachary visited the Apostolic Holy See again and had talks upon the church-union on behalf of Melkizedek.131 At the end of the same year Melkizedek received the papal delegation at the Catholicos’ church, accepted the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and officially sworn alliance to Rome.132 Melkizedek informed of these steps only his closest circle and regarding the church-union he disregarded the differences in the dogmas of the two churches: the interpretation of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Eucharist.133 Rome did not trust the Head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, much. From the reports written to the Apostolic Holy See it seems that Melkizedek did not have a lot of followers within the Armenian Apostolic Church and his career depended primarily on Shah Abbas I’s favour.134 Therefore, Rome expected Melkizedek to renew his Pledge of Allegiance which the catholicos did in 1623.135 Melkizedek got into conflict with the Armenian clergy because of his previous declarations of church-union since the members of the clergy entirely opposed the union. He was again accused of fraud since he had not paid the tax collected to the Persian court for years. For this, Shah Abbas I convoked him to Isfahan, the Safavid capital.136 To make matters worse, Melkizedek had the most sacred relics of the Armenian

127 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 202. 205–206. 128 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 218–219.; Carmelites, 1939. 101. 160–161.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 170.; Hakobyan–Hovhannisyan, 1974. vii−viii. xiii−iv; Schütz, 1987. 269–270. 129 Ališan, 1896b. 205.; Akinean, 1936. 295–298. 130 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 217.; Ōrmanean, 1960. 2316–2317.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 171.; Schütz, 1987. 277. 131 Akinean, 1936. 176.; Ōrmanean, 1960. 2316.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 171−172. 132 Carmelites, 1939. 210.; Ōrmanean, 1960. 2322–2323. 133 Sarkissian, 1975. 112–115. 134 Akinean, 1936. 300–304.; Carmelites, 1939. 319. 135 Carmelites, 1939. 99. 191. 210. 244. 136 Petrowicz, 1950. 11.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 164.; Schütz, 1987. 272–275.

53

54

Historical Antecedents

Apostolic Church, Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s right hand, smuggled out of the country and sent to Rome as a token of his loyalty. This act, however, caused, within the Armenian Apostolic Church and especially among the lower clergy, an outrage.137 Having received the convocation from the Shah, the anti-catholicos, Melkizedek took his wealth and the few followers he had and fled to Lviv in PolishLithuanian Commonwealth (Rzecz Pospolita Obojga Naródow) (now in Ucraine) in 1624 to avoid the legal impeachment.138 The irresponsible and volatile policy led by Melkizedek, the anti-catholicos collapsed in Armenia after he fled the country. The new Catholicos, Moses III (1629–1632) (Movsēs Tat’ewac’i) disapproved of Melkizedek’s politics and regarded the church-union null although he remained in cordial relations with the missions of the Roman Catholic Church in Armenia and in Persia.139 Despite all the doubts regarding the person of Melkizedek, Rome considered the church-union agreements of Melkizedek made in 1602, 1610, 1613 and 1623 (especially the last one) as the church-union of all the Armenians with Rome.

The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681) According to the research made by the renowned Polish historian, Oscar Halecki (1891−1973), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the land of relative religious tolerance in the early modern period: while in Western Europe religious wars were waged and persecutions took place, within the territory of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth peace among the different denominations was proclaimed. A peaceful resolution of religious differences and freedom of religion were demanded by the Polish aristocracy and nobility as committed adherents to Protestantism because they considered these ones as integral part of their civil rights. The special religious situation that developed after the Union of Lublin that constituted the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth played an important role in creating an atmosphere of religious tolerance. Beside the Principality of Transylvania that was considered an island of free religious practice, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was the only other political entity in Europe in which peoples of different religion and ethnicity could co-habitate in relative peace before the Reformation. Jews, Muslims. Latin-rite Catholics, Orthodox Christians and a big community of the Armenian Apostolic faith lived together in the country.140

137 138 139 140

Dawrižec’i, 1896. 9–13. 27–29. 222–228.; Carmelites, 1939. 321. 344.; Schütz, 1987. 269. 276. Dawrižec’i, 1896. 364.; Akinean, 1936. 339–359. Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. 610–612.; Akinean, 1936. 350.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 173. Halecki, 1993. 186.

The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681)

The Armenian community in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was considerable and was the wealthiest Diaspora. Many Armenian refugees appeared in the region of what is today Podolia and Galicia from the 13th century who established their communities along the trade road of the Northern part of Levant. Both the Principality of Halych and the Golden Horde recognised their right for religious freedom and trade privileges. The Polish occupation of the Principality of Halych in 1346 proved to be a decisive event in the history of the Armenians in Galicia. King of Poland, Casimir III the Great (1333–1370) intended to integrate the newly conquered territories into the Polish state the fastest possible. The king found partners in the Armenians who had settled down in these regions and saw them as a strong social group of urban dwelling merchants and artisans who were able to catalyse the economic growth of contemporary Poland. In decrees issued in 1356 the king ensured privileges for Armenian merchants in the entire kingdom and the right for free religious practice.141 King Casimsir III the Great supported the establishment of the archbishopric in Lviv in 1365. Lviv with its printing house and its schools became an important refuge of Armenian culture. The archbishop in Lviv following the schism in 1441 recognised the official Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin in the Armenian Motherland as the only Catholicos, but in fact he was his own master. It was of utmost importance for religious practice that their Armenian community had the right to elect their church leaders (ius eligendi) which they managed to acquire both from the Polish royal court in 1365 and from the Armenian catholicos in Cilicia.142 According to this, the community itself elected their high priests whose appointment, however, had to be approved by the Polish king and the Armenian catholicos.143 The Armenian community of Lviv carried more weight by the 15th century due to the controversies in canon law in the Armenian Motherland since the archbishop of Lviv also got an invitation to the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Grigor Nasredinean II, the Archbishop of Lviv supported the church-union of the Armenian Apostolic Church along with the Armenian clergy present at the council but he died soon after the synod. His successor, Awedik Ilovc’i vehemently opposed any church-union and kept governing his diocese according to the Armenian church-traditions.144 Armenians in Poland enjoyed relative religious tolerance until the first half of the 17th century. Many Armenian refugees went there from the Armenian Motherland because of the tragic events. Contemporary sources reported about 70,000 Armenians who lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As was mentioned above, 141 142 143 144

Zacharyasiewicz, 1842. 78.; Kovács, 2008. 53–66. Ōrmanean, 1993. 255. Petrowicz, 1971. 22. 37–43. 45–46. 61. 91. 238. 248. 261. 296. 300. Petrowicz, 1950. 51.

55

56

Historical Antecedents

the anti-catholicos and Uniate Melkizedek fled legal procedure and went to Lviv where he was well received by his former student Nikol (Mikołay, Nikołōs) Torosowicz (1603–1681) as well as the Jesuits of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with whom he developed cordial relations.145 The Armenian community in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and especially the clergy was not happy with the anti-catholicos who suddenly appeared in Lviv. With good reason they were afraid that Melkizedek would want to participate in the religious direction of their local community. Therefore, Melkizedek in secret ordained Torosowicz a priest on January 3rd , 1627 and appointed him Archbishop in the Holy Cross Monastery in Lviv.146 The appointment was opposed by the leaders of the Armenian community, especially by the Armenian judge, Zachary Bernatowicz and emphasised that Torosowicz was not suitable to hold the office of archbishop due to his young age and lack of sufficient theological studies. He was also accused of paying for his ordination.147 Little is known of Torosowicz’s life prior to his ordination. He came from one of the wealthiest families in Lviv, the Torosowicz clan. According to the source he never completed his studies in theology that he had started in Constantinople and the Armenian Motherland.148 Due to his conflicts with the Armenian community in 1630, he found refuge at the Saint Michael Discalced Carmelite monastery in Lviv and accepted the Roman Catholic creed from the head of the monastery.149 The monastery informed Rome soon of his conversion so Torosowicz was considered the Uniate Armenian Archbishop in Lviv from then. He set about the conversion of the Armenians of Poland to Roman Catholic faith with the help of the Roman Catholic Church.150 The Armenian Apostolic clergy in Poland was not very happy with him and strongly opposed the church-union proposed by Torosowicz. Many of them were imprisoned and beaten by Torosowicz who applied the same approach with the secular leaders of the community who opposed him. The archbishop focused on converting the members of the congregations thus by-passing the priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church.151 When the Armenian community invited scholarly 145 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 364. 146 MA, MS. No. 1916. Fol. 421.; BMK, MS. No. 12. Fol. 16.; BMK, MS. No. 166. Fol. 401.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 107.; Dašean, 1895. 441.; Ališan, 1896a. 110. 172–176. 185.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 365–366. p.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 222–223.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 172.; Petrowicz, 1971. 131–160.; Pingirian, 1982. 451–452.; Petrowicz, 1971. 131–160.; Osipian, 2017. 171−207. 147 Akinean, 1936. 249–250.; Petrowicz, 1950. 16. 52.; Schütz, 1987. 285. 148 APF SOCG, Vol. 291. Fol. 167.; Zacharyasiewicz, 1842. 78.; HC, 1935. 220.; Bischoff, 1865. 106–111.; Akinean, 1936. 250.; Petrowicz, 1950. 14. 22.; Schütz, 1987. 285. 149 Dawrižec’i, 1896. 289.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 174.; Xač’ikean, 1999. 252. 150 MA, MS. No. 211. Fol. 191.; MA, MS. No. 2864. Fol. 7–8.; MA, MS. No. 7786. Fol. 249. 151 Zacharyasiewicz, 1842. 77.; Ališan, 1896a. 204.; Petrowicz, 1950. 9–12. 23.

The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681)

priests from the Armenian Motherland to examine this issue in Lviv, Torosowicz said that he regretted his former actions and took a solemn oath in front of the delegates to stay loyal to the Armenian Apostolic Church and its Catholicos. His oath, however, was short lived because the archbishop was only buying time to play with the Armenian high priests, who were investigating his case.152 Torosowicz continued his Uniate church-policy with the help of the Polish clergy and the Apostolic Holy See. Therefore, the Armenian Apostolic Church sent to Poland Archbishop Grigor Kesarac’i (1571–1632), former Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople known for his rigour. However, when he arrived in Kamianets-Podilskyi (Kamieniec–Podolski, Ukraine) the Polish authorities, thanks to Torosowicz’s background activities, expelled him from the country for being an Ottoman spy. In response to this, Archbishop Kesarac’i anathematised (nzovum) Archbishop Torosowicz and everyone who was willing to follow him. The Armenian community in Poland seeing no other way out turned to the Catholicos for help and justice. In their letter written to Armenian Catholicos (Saint) Moses III dated July 25th, 1631, they drew the head of the church’s attention to the fact that Archbishop Torosowicz was unable to hold the office of an archbishop being a young and inexperienced man and because he was intending to break away the diocese from the Armenian Apostolic Church.153 The archbishop was offered two choices by the catholicos: he either submits himself to the investigation or will be deposed and expelled for ever from the Armenian Apostolic Church. The archbishop knew that an investigation would result in him losing his office.154 Therefore, seeing no other option he fled to the Discalced Carmelite monastery in Lviv and re-confirmed his confession of faith in the Roman Catholic Church.155 Two years later Archbishop Torosowicz returned to the Armenian part of Lviv with a few of his followers. With the help of the seular authorities, he confiscated the cathedral of the archbishopric, dedicated to the Assumption of Saint Mary, for the Roman Catholic Church. He issued an encyclical (kondak) in which he anathematised each Armenian clerical or secular individual who did not recognise the church-union. Furthermore, Torosowicz declared heretic all the Armenian

152 Ališan, 1896a. 204.; Akinean, 1936. 251–255. 153 APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 70–71. MA, MS. No. 2089. Fol. 322.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 366–369.; Ališan, 1896a. 25. 206.; 211.; Akinean, 1936. 255.; Alpōyačean, 1936. 136–144.; Simēon dpir Lehac’i, 1936. 399–405.; Pingirian, 1982. 451.; Schütz, 1987. 290–291.; Xač’ikean, 1999. 251.; Pelusi, 2008. 139−148. 154 Petrowicz, 1950. 25–26. 155 APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 102., Fol. 103–104.; AAV, ANV. Vol. 47. Fol. 58.; MA, MS. No. 1004. Fol. 192−193.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 375–376.; Ališan, 1896a. 209.; HC, 1935. 220.; Simēon dpir Lehac’i, 1936. 413–416.; Xač’ikean, 1999. 254–255.

57

58

Historical Antecedents

priests who were not in favour of the church-union and who did not accept his power as archbishop. Then he started to convert people by force with the support of the authorities and through inhuman torture persuaded the Armenians to convert to the Roman Catholic faith.156 During these acts, a large part of the Armenian community decided to leave the country.157 The Polish royal court supported the church-union for a long time from the background but the forced conversions, the cases when several Armenian clergymen and others in secular positions suffered death through torture required their intervention. King Wladislaus IV of Wasa (Waza) dynasty (1632–1648), King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth set up a committee to investigate these cases, then reprehended the archbishop for his violent methods but did not condemn him. The committee closed the affair. King Wladislaus IV‘s successor, King John Casimir II (1648–1668) took the church-union as a fact and felt it was unnecessary for a committee to investigate regarding the Armenian church-union.158 In the middle of the unclear situation in Armenia, the Armenian Apostolic Church could not concentrate sufficiently on the events in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The geographical distance played a part in this as well as slow communication and the lack of faithful followers. Furthermore, the Armenian Apostolic Church was constantly fighting for survival under the Ottoman and the Persian sovereignties, therefore the catholicoi could not have sufficient impact on Torosowicz’s church-union. They started to accept that the Armenian Apostolic Church lost the Armenian archbishopric in Lviv as well as the Armenian community in Poland. The cruelty of Archbishop Torosowicz and his followers met disapproval from the Apostolic Holy See. The Propaganda Fide sent the Dominican Father, Paolo Piromalli OP (1591−1667) who had been on mission in Armenia, to investigate this affair. Piromalli spoke excellent Armenian and had talks with the representatives of the Armenians against the church-union as well as Toroszowicz. In his report dated April 20th , 1640 Ftaher Piromalli reprehended the archbishop for his non-Christian attitude and urged his deposal for his inadequacy in theology.159 The archbishop suspected that the frater sent an unfavourable report on him. Therefore, in 1642 he turned to the Apostolic Holy See and asked Piromalli to be transferred from Lviv

156 APF SOCG, Vol. 64. Fol. 148.; APF SOCG, Vol. 65. Fol. 164.; MA, Ms. No. 2644. (Unnumbered folio.); Petrowicz, 1950. 123.; Schütz, 1987. 295.; Xač’ikean, 1999. 258–259. 265. 157 APF SOCG, Vol. 59. Fol. 178.; Simēon Dpir Lehac’i, 1936. 417.; Petrowicz, 1950. 79.; Schütz, 1987. 301. 158 APF SOCG, Vol. 293. Fol. 151.; Bischoff, 1864. 105–111.; Petrowicz, 1950. 79–80. 101–102.; Schütz, 1987. 296. 159 APF SOCG, Vol. 293. Fol. 247., Fol. 249., Fol. 256.; APF CP, Vol. 3. Fol. 235.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 107–108., Fol. 109., Fol. 110.; Ališan, 1896a. 139–140.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 383.; Petrowicz, 1950. 104. 109–111.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 176.; Schütz, 1987. 298.

The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681)

elsewhere because Piromalli had been harassing him with his investigation.160 Not long after this Piromalli was sent back to Armenia where he became Titular Latin Bishop and from 1644 Titular Latin Archbishop of Naxiǰewan (Naxivan) as well as the head of the mission of the Dominicans in Armenia.161 Despite the investigations, Torosowicz remained archbishop for more than half a century. He believed his position became so untenable the end of the 1640s, that he made another gesture towards the Armenian Apostolic Church. Torosowicz repented and in 1652 pledged an oath to Armenian Catholicos Philip I (1633–1655) (P’ilippos Ałbakec’i).162 The Catholicos seemed happy with the archbishop’s action but did not trust him and considered his gesture as a mere pretence.163 The Armenian Catholicos did not trust the sincerity of the archbishop because reports on his unethical life spread in Armenia. Selling off church treasures and old illuminated codices, collecting tax for selfish purposes, the sloppy management of the huge sum for aid received from the Apostolic Holy See as well as his relationship with a woman out of which, three children were born were judged as reproachable acts for both the Apostolic Holy See and the Armenian Apostolic Church.164 In the meantime, the Apostolic Holy See learnt that Archbishop Torosowicz rejected the church-union. It is a mystery why the Propaganda Fide or the Papal Curia did not take steps to remove the archbishop. Maybe it was the role he played in the church-union or because the Polish Catholic Church backed him all along. His outrageous way of life, however, caught the eye of the Apostolic Holy See.165 The Apostolic Holy See sent the Italian Theatine father, Clemente Galano CR (1611–1666) from Armenia to Lviv to hold a discussion with the renitent archbishop. The scholarly monk proved to be an ideal partner: He knew the relations within the Armenian Apostolic Church well and spoke excellent Armenian since he taught Latin language and the dogma of the Latin Church to Armenian seminarists at the Seminary of Ēǰmiacin in the Armenian Motherland.166

160 APF SOCG, Vol. 87. Fol. 193–194.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 176.; Molnár, 1992. 44–77.; Tóth, 2001. 424–425.; Tóth, 2002. 1092–1093. 1161–1163. 1284.; Galla, 2005. 91–102. 161 HC, 1935. 115. 253.; Petrowicz, 1950. 113–115.; Van Den Oudenrijn, 1960. 50.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 177–178.; Schütz, 1987. 297–299. 162 APMV, MS. No. 1788. Fol. 89–91., Fol. 100–102., Fol. 135–137.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 387.; Petrowicz, 1950. 266.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 176–177. 163 MA, MS. No. 3519. Fol. 360.; MA, MS. No. 5350. Fol. 417.; MA, MS. No. 7419. Fol. 546.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 178. 164 APF SOCG, Vol. 65. Fol. 165.; APF SOCG, Vol. 224. Fol. 101.; APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 100.; APF CP, Vol. 22. Fol. 5., Fol. 144.; Bischoff, 1864. 142.; Petrowicz, 1950. 124. 195–196. 266. 165 APF SOCG, Vol. 309. Fol. 168.; Benda, 2003. 515. 166 APF Acta SC, Vol. 33. Fol. 153–154.; APF SOCG, Vol. 121. Fol. 322.; APF SOCG, Vol. 228. Fol. 37., Fol. 122.; AGT CL, Portfolio 1. (Unnumbered folio.); APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 50., Fol. 51., Fol. 118.,

59

60

Historical Antecedents

Clemente Galano realised that the church-union proposed by Torosowicz posed several problems. The profession of faith Torosowicz took when he converted to the Roman Catholic faith was limited to recognising the primacy of the pope. Unlike the Ruthenians’ church-union in Brest in 1596, it did not include important questions such as the remuneration and the improvement of the social status of the Armenian Uniate priests and the laymen. This latter one proved superfluous since the Armenian clergy and the laymen had privileges in trade, economics and local government since the middle of the 14th century. If the Roman Catholic Church meant to motivate the Armenians in Poland for the church-union with economic privileges it would have failed due to the many-fold privileges the Armenians already had received. However, the church-union did not include such important issues in theology and dogma as the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon and the acceptance of the Filioque Creed, the rejection of the incorrect singing of the Trisagium hymn, taking over the Roman calendar, Eucharist and liturgical language. Archbishop Torosowicz stood by the old Armenian traditions all along in spite the several church-union agreements he had signed. This was one of the reasons why the Propaganda Fide sent Galano to correct the heretic and schismatic rites among the Armenians. The Apostolic Holy See had to face the fact that the church-union in Poland can only be successful if the Armenian Uniate Church led by Torosowicz received an institutional framework and if they ensure the training of new Uniate priests. By sending Father Galano the Apostolic Holy See had two aims. First, they meant to counter-balance Archbishop Torosowicz’s influence (Galano could be a potential successor in case the archbishop is deposed), secondly Father Galano was supposed to set up with his Theatine fellow monks a seminary for the Uniate Armenians. This latter was successfully executed when they founded the Armenian College (Collegium Armenum) in 1664, the first Rector (Prefect) of which was Clemente Galano until his death in 1666.167 He was succeeded by the French-born Louis (Aloisius) Marie Pidoux d’Olon CR (1637–1717), later Titular Bishop of Babylon, who had a tense relationship with Archbishop Torosowicz all through his time in office (1666–1678).168

Fol. 394.; Petrowicz, 1950. 165. 172.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 180–181. 195.; Blažejovskyj, 1975. 113.; Schütz, 1987. 303–305. 167 APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 132.; APF CP, Vol. 64. Fol. 41−47.; APF CP, Vol. 133. Fol. 270−310.; APF SC FA, Vol. 2. Fol. 120.; AGT CL, Portfolio 1. (Unnumbered folio.); Petrowicz, 1950. 165.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 181. 168 APF Acta SC, Vol. 38. Fol. 404.; Acta SC, Vol. 48. Fol. 72−75., Fol. 136.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 50. Fol. 27−28.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 51. Fol. 219−221.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 13., Fol. 39., Fol. 50., Fol. 51., Fol. 65., Fol. 75., Fol. 77r., Fol. 117.−118., Fol. 119., Fol. 120.−121., Fol. 310.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3.

The Church-Union of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv (1627–1681)

After Galano’s death, Torosowicz could relax for a short time but the Apostolic Holy See wanted to keep him under control even more. At the end of the 1660s, the Apostolic Holy See convoked him for an interrogation about financial misconduct, but the archbishop was willing to go only at the third call. He set off in 1668 and remained in Rome for eight years. The Apostolic Holy Office (aka. Holy/Sacred Inquisition) did not reprehend him officially because they could not prove the charges brought against him. Since neither the Apsotolic Holy See, nor the Holy Office trusted him, in 1675 they ordered Vardan (Vartan) Hunanean (1644–1715) and another young Armenian Uniate priest, a former seminarist of the Armenian College, Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz (Wardanowicz) (1652–1700), to be at the archbishop’s side.169 Vardan Hunanean, who was ordained Titular Bishop of Epiphania in Syria, was meant to be a coadjutor to the Archbishop.170 The Apostolic Holy See sent the two priests to Lviv with the clear intention to keep Torosowicz under control. Torosowicz, however, did not fail to realise this.171 The archbishop managed to turn Wartanowicz who became Torosowicz’s loyal follower.172 The archbishop clearly saw a rival in Hunanean, the young Armenian Uniate high priest of resolute faith and did all he could to make his life impossible in Lviv.173 Archbishop Torosowicz could easily achieve this since all the important ecclesiastical institutions in Lviv were headed by his cronies. Because of this, Bishop Hunanean turned to the Apostolic Holy See in 1678 to request his transfer and soon afterwards left for Armenia via Wallachia.174 The Apostolic Holy See was outraged by Torosowicz chasing away Bishop Hunanean and Torosowicz’s removal from office came out as a possibility.175 Early autumn in 1681 at the suggestion of the Propaganda Fide Pope Innocent XI (1676–1689) decided the immediate removal of the archbishop.176 Archbishop Torosowicz, however, did not live to be deposed because he died in Lviv

169 170 171 172

173 174 175 176

Fol. 132.; APF CV, Vol. 2. Fol. 2−23., Fol. 154., Fol. 156.; AGT CL, Portfolio 1. (Unnumbered folio.); Pidoux, 1676. 87–109.; HC, 1952. 110. APF Acta SC, Vol. 48. Fol. 2., Fol. 89−90.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 199., Fol. 200., Fol. 209–211., Fol. 226., Fol. 227–228., Fol. 231., Fol. 238., Fol. 332–337., Fol. 493., Fol. 517.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 183. APF Acta SC, Vol. 39. Fol. 207.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 209–221., Fol. 226., Fol. 227., Fol. 231., Fol. 238., Fol. 300., Fol. 335–337.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 1. Fol. 287.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 182–183. APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 442. APF Acta SC, Vol. 48. Fol. 130.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 448., Fol. 450., Fol. 470., Fol. 487., Fol. 493., Fol. 542., Fol. 548., Fol. 556., Fol. 596.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 100., Fol. 132., Fol. 133., Fol. 144.; APF SC, FMPR. Vol. 1. Fol. 660.; Welikyj, 1974. 165–167. APF SOCG, Vol. 471. Fol. 314.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 381–382., Fol. 413–417., fol. 420., Fol. 427.; Petrowicz, 1950. 225–229. 235. 246–251. 266–270. 297. 306. APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 270.; Petrowicz, 1950. 295. APF Acta SC, Vol. 48. Fol. 231− 234.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 574., Fol. 650. APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 10−11.

61

62

Historical Antecedents

on March 21st , 1681.177 His loyal follower, Wartanowicz escaped investigation and went to Constantinople.178 Archbishop Torosowicz’s church-union set off a process that led to the catholicisation of the entire Armenian population in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The church-union broke away from the old Armenian Apostolic church-tradition of several centuries because it destroyed its local organisation in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to give way to the new Armenian Uniate Church structure. The Armenian Apostolic Church had been solid and the church-union with the Roman Catholic Church could only be achieved through serious conflicts. Torosowicz’s confrontative and ambitious personality satisfied the Roman Catholic Church. This explains why the Apostolic Holy See looked the other way for a long time when they learnt of the unsubtle methods he applied and also his unethical private life not to speak of the fact that in fact Torosowicz never completed his studies in Theology and was appointed to be archbishop by a church-leader (e.g. Anti-Catholicos Melkizedek) who had constant problems of legitimacy within his own church. The archbishop left behind a disintegrated church and it was up to his successors to rebuild and develop the new church structure.179 Exaggerated is the view that Torosowicz lays the foundations of the Armenian Uniate (Catholic) Church. This does not correspond to reality since the archbishop did not have the real Catholic spirit. When signing the church-union agreements, he was led by no big goals or noble ideals but merely by ambition and selfish hunger for power. He swore loyalty to Rome despite the huge protests of the Armenian communities. Torosowicz had no idea he was supposed to build a new church structure in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. All he did was to keep his own interests in mind. However, his selfishness, as was mentioned above, served the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. Torosowicz‘s church-union, however, foreshadowed what was going to happen to other Armenian communities because confessionally it had an impact on the Armenians who fled from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Moldavia, and moved to Transylvania.180

177 APF Acta SC, Vol. 52. Fol. 4., Fol. 49−50., Fol. 189−190.; APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 70−71.; APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 6−7.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 287., Fol. 353., Fol. 361–362.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 184. 178 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 282., Fol. 310.; Bŗni Miut’iwn, 1884. 26. 31. 38. 164.; Dawrižec’i, 1896. 384.; Petrowicz, 1950. 307.; Schütz, 1987. 305. 309. 179 APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 27., Fol. 40−42. 180 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 184.; Gazdovits, 2006. 130.; Bournoutian, 2011. 144–151.

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

The Re-Organisation of the Re-Conquered Territories in Light of the Church-Unions During the times of the war of liberation, the question arose in the Viennese court what way the status of Hungary and Transylvania would change within the Habsburg Monarchy. In autumn 1687, Bishop (later Cardinal and Archbishop) and Count Leopold (Lipót) Karl von Kollonich (1631–1707) submitted a memorandum to the court about the principles of re-organising Hungary. Kollonich emphasised the main pivots that included politics, the legal system, the military, confessional matters, as well as the modernisation of the economic system. Members of the Hungarian elite did not contribute to the preparation of the memorandum. However, after the diet of 1687 Kollonich submitted to them the memorandum requesting their opinion. Palatine and Prince Pál Esterházy (1635–1713) and Cardinal György Széchényi (1605–1695), Archbishop of Esztergom played a major role in this.1 The palatine submitted the Viennese court own his hand-written suggestions on April 3rd , 1688. The palatine’s document also centred around 5 main questions regarding the reorganisation of the country. These were the legal system, church matters, public administration, military, and finally economic issues.2 The court committee led by Bishop Kollonich submitted the document to the Viennese court on the future political re-organisation of the Hungarian Kingdom entitled Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Hungarn in autumn 1689. In the proposal one thing was for certain: those preparing the document considered Hungary an integral and inseparable part of the Habsburg Monarchy. The other guiding principle was that the re-conquered and the less developed regions should be brought to the level of the Austrian Hereditary Lands (Habsburgische Erblande) both economically and in their organisational system.3 The Einrichtungswerk was written

1 Iványi, 1971. 137–160.; Varga J., 1991. 455.; Kalmár, 1991. 489–499. 2 The Latin title of the plan was Informatio ratione commissionis quoad politica, iuridica, militaria cameralia et spiritualia Viennae 3 Aprilis 1688 palatini suae sacratissimae maiestati porrecta. 3 An interesting piece regarding the reorganisatonal plans was Military Judge Johann Flämitzer’s pamphlet. In his view, the Verwirkungstheorie announced in 1671 should be followed through and the rebels who would be liable to start an uprising should be expelled from the country. The proposal prepared by the Italian-born father Angelo Gabrielle Gautieri da Nizza OFM (Gábor Tüzes) was fierce in its tone. It named the re-structuring of the county system as the key element of the reconstruction of Hungary. The title of his writing was: Il Governo dell’Ongaria l’anno 1701. Tüzes, 1900. 219–263.; Varga J., 1991. 477.; Szántay, 2005. 202–206. 208–210. 213–214.

64

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

in five chapters: political system (politicum), legal system, (iustitiarum), church matters (ecclesiasticum), military affairs (militare), and economics (camerale).4 Five months after the preparation of Palatine Esterházy’s hand-written document, upon the emperor’s order the committee sat in session in Bratislava (Pressburg/ Pozsony, Slovakia) headed by Palatine Pál Esterházy and Cardinal György Széchényi, Archbishop of Esztergom. Their main goal was to further develop the plan to reorganise Hungary after the diet. The palatine established subcommittees for each theme that worked independently from one another. Cardinal György Széchényi and others from the high priest focused on church matters.5 The proposal was completed on September 22nd , 1688 and was submitted to the court shortly after.6 The interest of the imperial court was that all provinces would be sustainable, and this applied also for the Kingdom of Hungary when the proposal for re-organisation was prepared. For this the right population policy was an indispensable condition. Those who prepared the proposal saw the key to the alignment of Hungary with the other provinces in repopulating the deserted areas. According to Bishop (later Archbishop and Cardinal) Kollonich’s plans, the settlers should be called in to the country on a voluntary and free basis. He considered it important that the new settlers should not be serfs, peasants bound to the land but people with the right to move freely recognised by Hungarian law as well. The bishop stressed the importance of offering a tax-free period (from 3 to 5 years) when the settlers will not have to pay or perform corvée work for landlords.7 The population of the re-conquered territories radically decreased as compared to the population of other Austrian Hereditary Lands.8 Therefore settlers followed closely behind the liberating army. Hungarian settlers who had been forced to move beyond the border fort line were attracted by the deserted lands in the Great Hungarian Plain and South Transdanubia. Other ethnic groups took up their abandoned villages. The German population of the counties next to the Austrian provinces

4 Iványi, 1971. 137.; Varga J., 1991. 452. 5 Recommended by Palatine and Prince Pál Esterházy, Count Pál Széchényi (1642–1710), Archbishop of Kalocsa, Miklós Balogh (1630–1689), Bishop of Vác and Balázs Jáklin (1664–1695), Bishop of Nitra (Nyitra, Slovakia), as well as Jakab Haskó, Bishop of Nitra appointed by the king but not confirmed by the Apostolic Holy See. Iványi, 1971. 153. 6 The title of the document: Opinio dominorum consiliarorum ad Posoniensem Commissionem pro die 13 septembris anni 1688 per Suam Maiestatem Sacratissimam convocatorum eidem Suae Maiestati Sacratissimae transmissa. This plan was closely related to the proposal the Palatine made earlier, adopting its principles further developing them. Iványi, 1971. 137. 155.; Iványi, 1987. 159–180.; Varga J., 1991. 457. 7 Varga J., 1991. 466–468. 8 Varga J., 1999. 42.

The Re-Organisation of the Re-Conquered Territories in Light of the Church-Unions

expanded in the East while Slovenians (Wendisch) and Croats arrived from the West.9 At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Slovakian population in Upper Hungary moved to the South. The Slovakian ethnic and language line moved more to the South and this tendency accelerated during the 18th century. During the same period, the migration of the Ruthenian nomad shepherds with a transhumance way of life from the far, North-Eastern side of the Carpathians was considerable and more Ruthenians were coming behind them.10 Similar was the case with the Romanians who had been settling down in Transylvania since late medieval times. There were other Romanians in Walachia and Moldavia, like with the Ruthenians, who were many to follow the early settlers.11 At the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, Serbs fleeing the Ottoman oppression appeared at the South border of the country. Their migration was accelerated by the liberation war. After the imperial troops came to a halt in their campaign in 1690, Serb refugees of several thousand families came to Hungary led by their head of church. The Viennese court gave them privileges and settled them down which allowed them to remain in the Kingdom of Hungary. A decade later the Serbian border guard region called Krajina was organised.12 Settling in spontaneously would not be enough in the bishop’s mind. The Viennese court calculated that internal Hungarian migration or the expansion of non-Hungarian ethnic groups that lived on the parameters of the Carpathian Basin will not be able to solve this serious demographic problem. The court took the position that German settlers from the Holy Roman Empire should be called in to settle down in Hungary. In light of this, the Imperial-Royal Repopulation Patent of 1689 was issued. The court primarily targeted settlers from the South and the Western part of the Holy Roman Empire populated by Germans to settle down in the wasteland in Hungary. In the second part of the 1680s and the next decade Germans (Schwabians) arrived in the neighbourhood of Buda and Pest as well as to the middle and the Southern parts of Transdanubia. The repopulation plan in religious matters followed the principles in German natural law and proclaimed relative tolerance towards the new settlers. As is wellknown, Bishop Kollonich was a fervent catholic but he realised that the ultraCatholic religious policy that had been led previously had to be softened if they wanted to repopulate the wastelands. Therefore, the repopulation plan allowed the settlement of non-Catholic ethnic groups as well. Kollonich thought other confessions should also be recognised because without this the repopulation may 9 10 11 12

Ibid., 43. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

65

66

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

come to a halt and the desired goal would not be reached. However, Kollonich meant to allow the free religious practice in public for non-Catholic settlers within narrow limits. He thought the place of residence of the non-Catholics should be surrounded by Catholic population so that the non-Catholic would not be the majority in a given village. Kollonich also believed that the relative religious tolerance should be limited to the population of the villages only. He thought Catholic Germans should populate in the free royal towns as regional economic and political centres.13 Kollonich knew the state of the Roman Catholic Church well. He was well aware that its authority declined. Therefore, the case of the parish priests had to be solved the sooner the better which could be done the fastest by enlarging their income. The issue of the income received by school masters had to be solved too and the best way to do this was to grant an allotment of a half portion of building lot for a house and an allotment of arable land free of levies.14 The main precondition for strengthening Catholicism was to re-establish the diocese system and to fund on the lands re-conquered from the Ottoman Turks. It also seemed particularly important too that these dioceses be headed by the most suitable and able candidates after receiving a Papal appointment and being ordained.15 Another important question was the conversion of Protestants and the church-union of the Eastern Orthodox Christian population lived in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. Kollonich made a distinction between recognised and tolerated denominations. Recognised were the Reformed and the Lutheran Church while the tolerated ones were the Orthodox denominations, the Zwinglianism, the Unitarians, the Anabaptists and the Jews. Following the Transylvanian example, he recognised free religious practice for the members of the Reformed (Calvinist) Church and the Lutherans but added that they did not achieve this by legitimate means.16 To them, he thought, the religious laws of 1681 and 1687 had to be applied but, at the same time, Bishop Kollonich also would have hastened their conversion.17 In Bishop Kollonich’s assessment, conversions and church-unions would integrate the originally non-Catholic population. Regarding the tolerated denominations, he had strong negative feelings only regarding the Jews.18 As was mentioned above, Bishop Kollonich considered of vital importance to oblige the Orthodox Ruthenians, Serbians and Romanians of Byzantine rite so that they sign a church-union agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. The idea

13 14 15 16 17 18

Varga J., 1999. 45. Varga J., 1991. 463. Ibid., 464. Iványi, 1971. 156.; Varga J., 1991. 464–465.; Soós, 1991. 501.; Varga J., 1999. 45–47. Varga J., 1991. 464. Varga J., 1991. 480.

The Re-Organisation of the Re-Conquered Territories in Light of the Church-Unions

behind this was that with these church-unions the confessional proportions would change in the country from top down. Population that was in majority Roman Catholic would have been easier to govern. Bishop Kollonich, however, specified also that the Orthodox priests accepting the church-union should not have the same remuneration and privileges as the Roman Catholic priests. Even in case of the church-union, Bishop Kollonich meant to defend the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Kollonich succeeded in signing or in pacting church-unions with schismatic church leaders in which Jesuit paters played a very important role. At first sight, these church-unions were a success, but they left a lot of questions open such as the remuneration and privileges of the Uniate clergy as well as the worries the Apostolic Holy See had about the canonisations of the Uniate dioceses that would overshadow the church-unions in the coming decades.19 What can be said in this regard of the Armenians in Transylvania? In the repopulation plan put forth by Bishop Kollonich Armenians were not mentioned. This was due to several reasons. The plan mainly concerned the Hungarian Kingdom and the territories re-conquered from Ottoman Turkish rule and Transylvania was not even mentioned there. The Armenians had been living in Transylvania for almost two decades at the time when the repopulation plan was prepared and were not part of a planned settlement policy. Furthermore, they were not invited as settlers to the Transylvanian Principality because these Armenians were refugees who fled military campaigns, pogroms, and outbreaks of pestilence in Moldavia and Podolia. They were several thousand (maximum ten or fifteen thousand) people and were just a tiny portion of the huge Armenian diaspora who had been living in this region since the end of the 11th century. The majority of the Armenians in Moldavia and Podolia did not flee to other regions during the ordeals they had to endure between 1668 and 1672, therefore the Armenians in Transylvania did not have the “re-supply” of other Armenians as the Romanians or Ruthenians did who were settling in little by little in great number from the other side of the Carpathians. Despite their low number, the Armenians represented a considerable economic factor due to being artisans or merchants who spoke several languages. The Viennese court, however, was unaware of their real economic weight until the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries and realised it long after the Francis Rákóczi’s War of Independence and the death of Oxendio Virziresco. The Armenian refugees who arrived in Transylvania between 1668 and 1672 came in handy for Prince Michael (Mihály) Apafi I (1661–1690). He encouraged them to settle down in Szeklerland and gave them free trade privileges and allowed them free religious practice of their Eastern Apostolic rites. Similar to the Transylvanian Greeks and Jews, Armenians were considered merchants of special

19 Ibid., 481.

67

68

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

rights who could all pay their dues, determined by the diets in Transylvania each year, in one lump sum. The Armenians of Transylvania proved to be a special case from the point of view of re-catholicisation. Firstly, Catholic missions were set up for them on an external impulse and not initiated by the Hungarian clergy or the Viennese court. Secondly, the general opinion of the Armenians in this period was different than that of Orthodox or Protestants groups. Armenians were neither Protestants nor Orthodox of the Byzantine rite but Eastern Christians of an old or an ancient apostolic tradition. The schismatic nature of the Armenians was considered different than that of the Orthodox religious groups because by then their separation from the ecumenical church had lasted for a thousand years. The schism between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Greek (Byzantine) Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church was made definitive by the politics and the misinterpreted dogmatic controversies during the at least two centuries following the Fourth Ecumnical Council of Chalcedon.

Attempts to Reach a Church-Union with the Orthodox Serbians Although the present study focuses upon the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and its direct consequences we cannot disregard what way the attempts at other church-unions went. It would, of course, be unnecessary to go into the tiniest details of the church-unions of other Eastern-rite Christian groups in Hungary. However, a bried description would help to understand the nature of the Armenian’s church-union. The processes for a church-union in Hungary and in Transylvania were set off entirely separate from each other spurred on by different political motivations. When signing a church-union agreement, the decrees of the Council of FerraraFlorence were taken as a base. The following dogmas were accepted: the primacy of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, the Filioque Creed, that is the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son, the existence of Purgatory, and the possibility to use consecrated leavened bread or host for the rite of the Eucharist. Eastern churches kept their traditional rites after the church-union and their priests enjoyed the same privileges as the Roman Catholic priests.20 With the Serbians, similarly to the Armenians, the concept of church and nation were intertwined. This marriage of their cultural and religious identities started when the Serbians lost their independent state at the end of the 14th century. Therefore, the Serbian Orthodox Church became the unifying force to keep the Serbian people together as well as the symbol of the unity of the nation.

20 Pirigyi, 1990. 74.; Pirigyi, 1991. 27.

Attempts to Reach a Church-Union with the Orthodox Serbians

Attempts were made for a church-union among the Serbians in Southern Hungary (Délvidék) in Slavonia as early as the beginning of the 17th century. Simon Vratanja, a Serbian bishop, converted to the Roman Catholic faith in Rome in the presence of Pope Paul V (1605–1621) on November 9th , 1611 due to the missionary work of the Croatian parish priest called Dubrović. The Serbian bishop was also appointed as a Uniate bishop of the Serbians of Hungary and Slavonia. The church-union proved successful this time, but the number of the bishop’s followers grew very slowly.21 The Uniate Serbians in Slavonia (Croatia), however, were faced with serious canonisational problems later since the Apostolic Holy See did not recognise the bishopric of Marča (Márcsa, Croatia) or the bishops appointed by the Viennese court. In 1667 the court appointed Gabriel Mihalić a bishop who went to Rome for approval of his episcopal title. The Apostolic Holy See, however, did not approve and referred to the fact that the bishopric of Marča in Slavonia had originally belonged under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archbishopric in Kalocsa. In the past this bishopric was not filled in and it lost its importance.22 Furthermore, the Apostolic Holy See stated that they could not find evidence as to who owned the territory of the bishopric. Bishop Mihalić’s successor was Pavel Zorčić (died in 1685) and during the time he held this position an important change took place. Since Rome did not approve of the new bishop therefore, the court, exhausted by the endless litigation in church law, decided that the Bishop of Marča as a Uniate Vicar should be under the jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Zagreb. At the same time the Bishops of Marča received the title of a Titular Bishop from the Apostolic Holy See. Bishop Zorčić must have felt lucky when in 1682 the Apostolic Holy See appointed him Titular Bishop of Plataia in Greece.23 His successors, however, had endless and hopeless fights especially due to the waves of Serbian refugees that put an end to the independent bishopric. In the 1690s an anti-church-union movement set off led by Arsinije Černojević (1633−1706), Serbian Orthodox Patriarch of Peja/Pejë (Peć/Ipek, Kosovo), which was the final blow to the church-union of Marča and the Uniate bishopric.24 During the very same period church-unions among the Serbians living in Srem/ Srijem (Sirmium/Szerémség, Croatia and Serbia) and County Baranya in Hungary were attempted. The monks in the Basilian/Basilite monastery of Novo Hopovo in the mountain of Fruka Gora in Srem/Srijem signed a church-union agreement with Rome and were assigned under the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Marča. After the Ottoman Turks were expelled, Ferenc Jány (1641–1702), Roman Catholic 21 22 23 24

Fraknói, 1895. 392.; Pirigyi, 1990. 89. Fraknói, 1895. 393. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 341–348.; Nilles, 1885. 710.; Fraknói, 1895. 393.; HC, 1935. 317. Pirigyi, 1990. 89–90.

69

70

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

Bishop of Srem/Srijem continued the church-union policy with the Serbians living in his diocese.25 In 1688 a considerable number of Uniate Serbian Congregation is known. On Bishop Leopold Kollonich’s suggestion, Emperor and King Leopold I (1657–1705) established an independent Episcopal See for the Uniate Serbians in Srem/Srijem. In 1688, the Emperor appointed Longin Raić, a former Orthodox bishop, who joined the church-union thanks to the missionary work of Bishop Ferenc Jány. The new See was the Basilite/Basilian Monastery in Novo Hopovo (Új-Hopovo, Serbia).26 In 1690, Bishop Ferenc Jány officially converted the clergy and the monks of the Orthodox Church in Counties Baranya, Tolna, and Fejér to the Roman Catholic faith in the Jesuit church of Pécs.27 These Uniate clergymen were also assigned under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Novo-Hopovo. Due to the repopulation plan, however, many of them moved to near the Rivers Tisa (Tisza) or Mureş (Maros). In their new environment, where the Orthodox followers of Patriarch Arsinije Černojević were great in number as we shall see later, and in the absence of the Uniate bishop, a lot of these Uniate clergymen left the church-union. The Wars of the Holy League brought a radical turn in the history of the Serbian Uniates. In 1688 during the military campaigns Emperor and King Leopold I called the Serbians to take up arms and revolt against the Ottoman rule that had lasted for several centuries because for the imperial troops it was vital to acquire the support of the Christians in the Balkans. The Emperor addressed the Serbians in two diplomas in which he promised them the rights they used to have, namely free religious practice, and free election of their local leaders (namely their voivodes and knezas), provided the Serbians gave military assistance to the imperial troops in the successful offensive in the Balkans. Furthermore, the court promised the Serbians the right to elect their own patriarch and the exemption from the war taxes, tithes and quartering troops. The Serbs, under the influence of these promises, rose up and sided with the imperial army.28 In 1690 the offensive of the imperial troops came to a halt near Skopje (Northern Macedonia). About two hundred thousand Serb refugees, terrified of the expected Ottoman revenge and possible counter-offensive, fled to the Hungarian Kingdom led by Patriarch Arsinije Černojević. The Serbian head of church wanted to ensure the rights and freedoms of his people in their new land. Therefore, he mentioned the possibility of a church-union with Rome. The Viennese court met his demands. Emperor and King Leopold I issued a diploma about the rights and privileges of the Serbs on August 20th , 1691 at the Hungarian Chancellery. The diploma also 25 26 27 28

ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 293–295. Karácsonyi, 1985. 210–213.; Pirigyi, 1990. 90–91. Hermann, 1973. 351–352.; Pirigyi, 1990. 91. Hodinka, 1943. 4.

Attempts to Reach a Church-Union with the Orthodox Serbians

allowed the Serbian patriarch to appoint and ordain Orthodox bishops. These privileges guaranteed the Serbs in Hungary to de jure form a national and religious singularity.29 The patriarch himself settled down in Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz/Karlóca, Serbia) of Southern Hungary (Délvidék) and established his residence there. At the beginning he was the patriarch of only the Serbs who fled with him in 1690 from Serbia to Hungary.30 From the middle of the 1690s, however, Patriarch Černojević extended his jurisdiction to the Serbs who had migrated to Hungary or Slavonia before, Uniate Serbs included. In 1696 the Serbian patriarch organised eleven Serbian Orthodox bishoprics in the country while the Uniate Serbs had just one Episcopal See. Rome had legal problems regarding this. In any case, the above-mentioned circumstances had a rather negative impact on the Serbian Uniate Church and played an important part in the failure of further church-unions. The patriarch’s anti-church-union policy was noticed by the Hungarian Catholic Church. Cardinal Leopold Kollonich warned the Serbian patriarch that he abused of his jurisdiction with his anti-union policy and appointment of bishops since this latter was the right of the Emperor in Hungary. Cardinal Kollonich also insisted that the patriarch had jurisdiction over the Serbs who arrived in Hungary with him and the patriarch could not extend it to those Serbs who had settled down in the country before that.31 Cardinal Kollonich’s critical remarks proved in vain because the Serbian patriarch was under the protection of the Viennese court and the powerful archbishop was helpless against the court.32 Once he acquired the desired privileges from the court and managed to extend these rights, Patriarch Černojević believed it was time to deal with the Uniate Serbs once and for all. It was in favour of the patriarch that there were problems around the Uniate bishopric regarding the right of patronage (ius supremi patronatus) and due to the frequent deaths, there were interregnum periods in between two Uniate bishops. Patriarch Černojević sent his priests to Srem/Srjem and Slavonia on visitation. These priests set the Uniate Christians against their clergy and told them to reject the church-union and to expel their Uniate priests and bishop. This activity of the patriarch proved successful because the faithful rejected the church-union and no longer obeyed their Uniate bishop. The Uniate believers remained without a leader, therefore most of them returned to the Orthodox Church. Petar Ljubibratić, the

29 30 31 32

ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 38. Pag. 219–220.; Hodinka, 1943. 6–7.; Pirigyi, 1990. 92. Hodinka, 1943. 11. APF SC, FUT. Vol. 3. Fol. 186.; Nilles, 1885. 754.; Fraknói, 1895. 409.; Pirigyi, 1990. 92. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 274.

71

72

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

Uniate Bishop of Marča, was driven away and the patriarch appointed an Orthodox bishop in his stead.33 Patriarch Černojević died in 1706. His successors mercilessly followed his antiunion campaign which, in some time, led to the destruction of the Uniate bishopric of Marča, the headquarters of the Serbian Uniate Church. The Viennese court realised that the Serbians in Hungary received many rights even without the churchunion, so that the court was not in the position to promise any more in return for the church-union. They also understood that it was impossible to force the Serbian to sign the church-union.34 The church-union of the Serbs in Hungary, in fact, failed. The reason for this was that the Serbs in Hungary formed a massive and unified church organisation. They also had more privileges and rights than the other ethnic confessional groups who were more vulnerable to the church-union. Further on, the church-union for the Serbs was ineffectual because the court could not promise new privileges in return for the church-union since under the leadership of their Patriarch they managed to acquire these rights without signing the church-union agreement. An important factor was also that most of the Serbs settled down near the front line with the Ottoman Empire as a military unit. The Viennese court understood that forcing these Orthodox Serbs for a church-union would create serious tensions among those who were defending the border.35

The Church-Union of the Ruthenians in the Subcarpathian Region After the failure of the Serbian church-union, Cardinal Leopold Kollonich could claim that the church-unions of the Ruthenians of the Subcarpathian region and the Romanians in Transylvania were successful. One of the biggest achievements Cardinal Kollonich had were these church-unions which he could not have “enforced” without the perseverance of the Jesuit fathers.36 When one examines the reasons for signing the Ruthenian church-union then we can discern at least three separate motives. The first one was to restore the unity of the Christian church that suffered a schism in 1054. Secondly, the clergy did not feel safe due to the landlords’ tyranny, who was forcing the conversion of those living in their lands. Forced conversion could be avoided by possibly reaching an

33 34 35 36

Pirigyi, 1990. 92. Karácsonyi, 1929. 350–351.; Hodinka, 1943. 9–11.; Pirigyi, 1990. 93. Hodinka, 1909. 23–24. Varga J., 1991. 481.

The Church-Union of the Ruthenians in the Subcarpathian Region

agreement about the church-union. The third and most important reason was the strong desire of the clergy to ascend on the social ladder and to become wealthy.37 Signing the church-union with the Ruthenians was the result of several decades’ work. Kollonich’s activity in this process was the last important phase in signing the church-union agreement with Rome. The Roman Catholic Church was not just motivated by restoring the unity of faith through these church-unions. There were also political and economic reasons in the background. Church leaders, Orthodox high priests, archimandrites and abbots usually saw the political and economic profit they could make through the church-union. The Roman Catholic Church attempted these church-unions not with homogeneous Eastern Christians, living in big blocks but those communities who formed “schismatic” minorities in foreign countries. Among others, the church-union of Brest (Brześć nad Bugiem, Belarus) in 1596 was such a case.38 The Viennese court realised that church-unions had to be built not on confessional but political and economic considerations. Therefore, they would bring more profit in politics than ecclesiastically (spiritually). The people the court meant to use to carry through the church-union were promised a lot financially and politically. With the Ruthenians, the number of people in their communiies and their educational level played an important part. To sign the church-union agreement of Brest served the Ruthenian clergy offering them status. Before the church-union the priests (or as they were called in their own language: the batykos) lived as serfs similarly to the Ruthenians of the Subcarpathian region. After the church-union of Brest, the Uniate clergy was freed from serfdom, and their bishops and archbishops were invited by the Polish rulers to the diets. Uniate seminarists could study theology abroad on scholarships, for example in seminaries in Rome. On the other hand, their church traditions remained intact after the church-union: they could keep their own liturgy guaranteed by the theses of the Council of Ferrara-Florence.39 The Orthodox bishops of Mukačevo learnt about the church-union of Brest since they kept close contact with their fellow believers in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.40 The opportunity for social ascension in the Subcarpathian region was a motivation for the church-union. Ruthenian clergy intended to free themselves from subjugation to theire landlords and wanted to acquire privileges.41 The idea of church-union was raised among Ruthenians who lived on Rákóczi estates by Vazul Taraszovics (1633–1651) at the beginning of the 1630s.42 George

37 38 39 40 41 42

Hodinka, 1909. 254.; Pirigyi, 1990. 81–82. 95.; Pirigyi, 1991. 25.; Botlik, 1997. 17. APF CP, Vol. 100. Fol. 112–116.; Pirigyi, 1990. 96. Hodinka, 1909. 253. Hodinka, 1909. 259–260.; Kosáry, 1996. 90–91. Zsatkovics, 1884. 683.; Hodinka, 1909. 86. 140. 262–264. 267.; Pirigyi, 1990. 96. Zsatkovics, 1883. 683.; Hodinka, 1909. 262–264. 267.; Pirigyi, 1990. 96.; Baán, 2003. 515−526.

73

74

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

(György) Rákóczi I (1593–1648), Prince of Transylvania, appointed him as an Orthodox Bishop of Mukačevo in 1633.43 In the first years of his office he assessed his church and the possibility of a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church. He, therefore, went on episcopal visits and held synods in his diocese. Taraszovics in the meantime met György Lippay (1600–1666), Bishop of Eger (Erlau, Hungary), who later became Cardinal and Archbishop of Esztergom, and held successful discussions with him about the church-union. After these negatiations, he returned to Mukačevo and agreed with his diocese about the church-union.44 Bishop Taraszovics was about to return to Jasov (Jászó, Slovakia) in 1640 so that he could convert to the Roman Catholic faith in front of György Lippay, Bishop of Eger when the news reached János Ballingh (died in 1645), Lord Castellan of Mukačevo who imprisoned the bishop on the eve of the church-union.45 After his release, Taraszovics went to Vienna where he converted to the Roman Catholic faith on July 12th , 1642. The Emperor provided an allowance and a residence for him in Nagykálló. The bishop returned to Mukačevo incognito in 1648 to appoint his successor, Péter Parthenus (died in 1665). Taraszovics made the faithful that gathered in the monastery-church on Černexa Hora Mountain take an oath that after his death they would stand by Parthenus during the election of the next bishop. During Taraszovics’s lifetime, Anna Jakusity, the widow of Lord Judge János Homonnai Drugeth, invited Péter Parthenus and his clergy to Užgorod (Ungvár, Ukraine) about the church-union. The widow and Parthenus agreed in words upon the church-union.46 As a result of this, Anne Jakusity’s brother, György Jakusity (1609–1647), Bishop of Eger, came to Užgorod and continued the talks on the conditions of the churchunion. Finally, the parties agreed that after the church-union the Eastern liturgy would remain intact. They also agreed that the Uniate bishops would be elected at synods of the diocese and they would turn to the Apostolic Holy See for approval. They also agreed that the Ruthenian clergy would have the same ecclesiastic and secular privileges than the Roman Catholic clergy. After the talks and the debates were successfully concluded, on April 24, 1646, Péter Parthenus and sixty-three priests made a confession of Catholic faith with Bishop Jakusity.47 Jakusity’s successor, Benedek Kisdy (1589–1660) also approved it.

43 Hodinka, 1909. 126. 541.; Lacko, 1955. 13–14. 176–177.; Tusor, 2002. 204–205. 213. 220. 226–227. 44 Hodinka, 1909. 119. 267. 288–294.; Lacko, 1955. 78–79. 205. 246–252.; Welykyj, 1972. 6–7. 16.; Tusor, 2002. 220. 45 APF LDSC, Vol. 9. Fol. 139.; Zsatkovics, 1884. 684–685.; Hodinka, 1909. 272–287.; Pirigyi, 1990. 97–98.; Botlik, 1997. 19–20. 46 Zsatkovics, 1884. 684. 687.; Hodinka, 1909. 44. 304. 331. 665. 47 APF SOCG, Vol. 600. Fol. 230.; Hodinka, 1909. 42. 297–301. 305–306. 308. 311–312. 321. 340.; Karácsonyi, 1985. 213–215.; Lacko, 1955. 114–150.; Welikyj, 1972. 95–96. 101–102.; Hermann,

The Church-Union of the Ruthenians in the Subcarpathian Region

During the twenty-five years following the union in Užgorod discord was the characteristic atmosphere in the Uniate bishopric of Mukačevo. During this period there were nine bishops appointed to head the diocese of Mukačevo but not confirmed in their position by the Apostolic Holy See. This unfortunate situation did not do any good to the church-union of Užgorod but since the Apostolic Holy See did not recognise the existence of the Episcopate in Mukačevo the bishops of the Uniate Ruthenians found themselves ex-lex status.48 The conflicts surrounding the appointments of bishops, the schisms and the disobedience to church discipline added to the problem.49 In 1688, Ágoston Benkovich (1632–1702), Bishop of Oradea (Nagyvárad, Romania) drew Cardinal Leopold Kollonich’s attention to the unfortunate and chaotic state of affairs in the diocese of Mukačevo.50 Cardinal Kollonich invited the learned József De Camelis (1649–1706) of Greek origin, who had formerly worked at the Library of the Apostolic Holy See and as the procurator in Rome of the Russian Basilite fathers. On Cardinal Leopold Kollonich’s recommendation, Pope Alexander VIII (1689–1691) appointed De Camelis the Apostolic Vicar of the Ruthenians in Mukačevo on November 5th , 1689 and was ordained as a Titular Bishop of Sebasteia in Armenia (now Sivas in Turkey).51 Emperor and King Leopold I appointed De Camelis as a Bishop of Mukačevo but added that he as well as his successors should obey the Bishop of Eger. This later caused a lot of complications in jurisdiction between Eger and Esztergom that lasted until the Uniate diocese was founded, established, and erected.52 Kollonich’s Einrichtungswerk originally placed the Episcopal See of Mukačevo under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Eger. In the fourth point of the Chapter entitled Ecclesiasticum of the above-mentioned document, Cardinal Kollonich recommended Emperor and King Leopold I to place the Uniate bishop of Mukačevo as suffragan bishop under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Eger. Cardinal Kollonich justified this by mentioning that the bishops of Mukačevo had entirely neglected

48 49 50

51

52

1973. 272.; Sugár, 1984. 323.; Pirigyi, 1990. 98.; Tusor, 2002. 226–227.; Miron, 2004. 34.; Baán, 2007. 118−129.; Baán, 2008. 113–132; Galla, 2010. 103. APF SC, FUT. Vol. 1. Fol. 260–266.; Zsatkovics, 1884. 695.; Hodinka, 1909. 42. 795. 797.; Tóth, 1994. 147. 153. APF SOCG, Vol. 445. Fol. 142–145.; Tóth, 1994. 185.; Baán, 2012. Hodinka, 1909. 398–399.; Pirigyi, 1990. 141.; Tóth, 1994. 9. 16. 18. 29. 141. 143. 156. 170. 171. 183–201. 205.; Miron, 2004. 34.; Végsheő, 2000. 65–81.; Véghseő, 2003. 99–122.; Véghseő, 2007. 227–244. 291–294. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 602–604., Fol. 606–607., Fol. 608.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 133−138.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 227–238.; Hodinka, 1909. 569.; HC, 1952. 347.; Pirigyi, 1990. 142.; Baán, 2005. 97−107.; Véghseő, 2011. 121. 140−143. Zsatkovics, 1884. 767–768. 770–772.; Nilles, 1885. 855.; Hodinka, 1909. 325–326. 400. 405–406. 408.; Sugár, 1984. 368–369.

75

76

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

obedience to the metropolitan bishops in which political disorder had played a part. As a result, metropolitans could not exert control over them which resulted in the Uniate bishops alienating from the truths of the Roman Catholic Church. Despite the dependency clause Cardinal Kollonich formulated, a definite need surfaced to transform the bishopric into a diocese so that their metropolitan be directly the Archbishop of Esztergom.53 Despite this, De Camelis’s episcopal activities were characterised by serious organisational work. In three years, he held twelve synods, visited all the parishes and sent detailed reports of his visitations to the missionary authorities of the Apostolic Holy See. He ensured he remained entirely under the jurisdiction of his metropolitan.54 Bishop De Camelis took great care in managing the episcopal assets and training future priests. Remuneration proved to be a difficult question which was finally resolved in 1751 under the rule of Queen Maria Theresa. The bishop established a foundation for the Saint Nicholas Monastery of the Basilite/ Basilian Order upon the Černexa Hora Mountain with a capital of 1000 florins on condition the funds were used to pay a teacher for teaching young candidates church rites, as well as Latin and Hungarian languages.55 De Camelis believed it was important to raise the social status of the clergy. Therefore, he turned to the court and on August 23rd , 1692 Emperor and King Leopold I issued a patent containing the privileges of the Uniate clergy in which he stated that the priests and their family members were exempt of serfdom. He also stated that Uniate clergy have the same rights and privileges as the Roman Catholic priests. The emperor ordered also in the patent that landlords provide separate lots for parishes, schools and cemeteries.56 This latter order, however, met with serious resistance because landlords objected to the fact that the emperor made the decision regarding the Ruthenians without involving the diet. György Fenessy (1632−1699), Bishop of Eger, and Cardinal Kollonich stood by the Uniate clergy but the orders of the patent were not executed due to the protests made by the counties.57 To put these in practice, in fact, took long decades.58 Prince Francis Rákóczi’s War of Independence caused a lot of trouble in the history of the Uniate church and bishopric. Bishop De Camelis could not stay in Mukačevo because Rákóczi’s follower, the Uniate Petronius Kaminszky (died in

53 Hodinka, 1909. 93. 255. 570–571. 54 APF SOCG, Vol. 509. Fol. 320.; APF SC, FGCDSUT. Vol. 1. Fol. 117−118.; Bethlen, 1860. 135–136.; Galla, 2010. 150. 55 APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 196–197.; Nilles, 1885. 860–865.; Pirigyi, 1990. 143. 56 Zsatkovics, 1884. 773. p.; Hodinka, 1909. 413. p.; Karácsonyi, 1929. 352–353. 357. p.; Hermann, 1973. 350–351. p.; Pirigyi, 1990. 144. p.; Miron, 2004. 34. p.; Galla, 2010. 150. p. 57 Hodinka, 1909. 572. 574. 581–583. 58 Hodinka, 1909. 626–662.; Botlik, 1997. 26–27.

The Church-Union of the Ruthenians in the Subcarpathian Region

1710) drove him away.59 Therefore, Bishop De Camelis was forced to flee to Eperjes and since he did not take an oath of loyalty to the Prince he was expelled from the country. He died in 1706 and therefore was unable to fulfil his mission. Nevertheless, his career was an example to follow for his successors. However, the signs were rather ominous then.60 With Bishop De Camelis’s death, there was total chaos around the appointment of the episcopal see. Prince Francis Rákóczi II appointed his loyal follower, Kaminszky as a Bishop of Mukačevo based on his rights as magnate of the region.61 The Uniate Metropolite of Kiev wanted the Episcopal See of Mukačevo under his jurisdiction. Rákóczi turned to the Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev and requested Kaminszky’s ordination and asked the Metropolitan to intervene at the Apostolic Holy See so that Kaminszky’s appointment is confirmed.62 The Apostolic Holy See, however, were of a different opinion. Pope Clement IX (1700–1721) appointed György Vinnicky, Uniate Bishop of Przemyśl, to govern the Episcopate of Mukačevo.63 Joseph I (1705–1711), Emperor and King of Hungary, on his turn, appointed János Hodermárszky, former deputy to Bishop De Camelis, as a Bishop of Mukačevo, who was supported by the majority of the Uniate clergy.64 In fact, there were three Uniate bishops of Mukačevo at the same time who all insisted on the rightfulness of their appointment. In the meantime, the Apostolic Holy See appointed Vinnicky as the Uniate Archbishop of Kiev and put Polikárp Filippovics as a Vicar in his stead in 1709.65 After Kaminszky’s death, Prince Francis Rákóczi II wanted to appoint György Bizánczy (died in 1733), former Dean of Nagykálló in 1710.66 The Viennese

59 APF LDSC, Vol. 95. Fol. 81–84. 60 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 199–202.; Hodinka, 1909. 432–433.; Pirigyi, 1990. 145–146.; Botlik, 1997. 27.; Mihalik, 2017. 214−218. 61 APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 155., Fol. 157−58., Fol. 159. 62 Nilles, 1885. 866.; Fraknói, 1895. 420–421.; Hodinka, 1909. 432–438. 445–446. 454–458. 665–669.; Botlik, 1997. 28. 63 APF Acta SC, Vol. 78. Fol. 157–163.; APF SOCG, Vol. 570. Fol. 65–67., Fol. 72–73.; APF LDSC, Vol. 96. Fol. 21.; APF LDSC, Vol. 98. Fol. 62.; APF LDSC, Vol. 99. Fol. 87., Fol. 90.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 59. 2Pag. 99–300.; Hodinka, 1909. 429. 433.; Welikyj, 1954. 247–248.; Petrowicz, 1988. 76–77. 64 APF SOCG, Vol. 570. Fol. 59–62., Fol. 63., Fol. 64., Fol. 75., Fol. 76.; Fraknói, 1895. 421..; Hodinka, 1909. 119. 431–434. 451–452. 461–514. 65 APF Acta SC, Vol. 71. Fol. 82–83.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 81. Fol. 680–685.; APF SOCG, Vol. 570. Fol. 71.; APF SOCG, Vol. 577. Fol. 37–38.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 151., Fol. 153.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 104–108.; Fraknói, 1895. 422–423.; Hodinka, 1909. 86. 453–456. 461–494. 521–522.; Welikyj, 1954. 171. 281–282.; Sugár, 1984. 379–380.; Pirigyi, 1990. 147. 66 APF Acta SC, Vol. 80. Fol. 12–14.; APF SOCG, Vol. 571. Fol. 50.; APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 234., Fol. 235.; APF LDSC, Vol. 99. Fol. 1., Fol. 115., Fol. 123., Fol. 206.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 165., Fol. 167.

77

78

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

court, however, insisted on the appointment of Hodermárszky who the Apostolic Holy See would not sanction in this church position.67 The chaos and conflicts due to this issue of appointing the head of the Episcopate of Mukačevo did damage to the church-union and internal church discipline. In fact, no one took care of the ordination of priests or acquired consecrated Miron oil.68 Many priests remarried, and it often occurred that they married formerly divorced people. István Telekessy (1633–1715), Bishop of Eger, called attention to the untenable situation.69 He appointed Bizánczy, former follower of Ferenc Rákóczi II, as a Vicar in 1713.70 Bishop Telekessy’s intervention brought its fruit. He managed to persuade Fillipovics and Hodermárszky to resign as bishops of Mukačevo.71 (Habsburg) Charles III (1711–1740), Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Hungary, appointed Bizánczy as a Bishop of Mukačevo in 1715.72 Rome, however, maintained its reservations concerning the episcopate of Mukačevo and in the same year appointed Hodermárszky, similarly to Bishop De Camelis, as an Apostolic Vicar and Titular Bishop of Sebasteia in Armenia.73 This situation, however, was untenable. Therefore, Bizánczy was deposed based on the right of the magnate. At the same time, Hodermárszky also had to go because he

67 APF Acta SC, Vol. 81. Fol. 412–413., Fol. 492–495.; APF SOCG, Vol. 570. Fol. 75., Fol. 76–77.; APF SOCG, Vol. 577. Fol. 38., Fol. 460–463., Fol. 464., Fol. 465., Fol. 466., Fol. 470–471., Fol. 472–473., Fol. 474–475., Fol. 476.; APF LDSC, Vol. 100. Fol. 70–71., Fol. 142., Fol. 157., Fol. 240–241., Fol. 339.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 163.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 23., Fol. 78–79.; Zsatkovics, 1884. 773–775. 777.; Hodinka, 1909. 478. 521–522. 68 APF Acta SC, Vol. 81. Fol. 585–586., Fol. 623–624.; APF SOCG, Vol. 577. Fol. 644., Fol. 648., Fol. 649., Fol. 650., Fol. 654.; APF LDSC, Vol. 100. Fol. 322–323., Fol. 348., Fol. 350–351., Fol. 352–353. 69 APF LDSC, Vol. 101. Fol. 1.; Hodinka, 1909. 497–499. 583–584. 70 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 51–52., Fol. 173., Fol. 175.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 83. Fol. 20–22., Fol. 192–193., Fol. 545–546.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 84. Fol. 229–231., Fol. 425–427., Fol. 667–669.; APF SOCG, Vol. 579. Fol. 534–535., Fol. 539., Fol. 540., Fol. 541., Fol. 542–543.; APF LDSC, Vol. 101. Fol. 7–8., Fol. 60–63., Fol. 238., Fol. 193–197., Fol. 198., Fol. 234., Fol. 274–275., Fol. 290–294., Fol. 395–396.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 105., Fol. 104.+106., Fol. 107–108., Fol. 120., Fol. 129–130., Fol. 137., Fol. 138.; Hodinka, 1909. 462–463. 497.; Pirigyi, 1990. 147. 71 APF Acta SC, Vol. 80. Fol. 345.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 81. Fol. 376–382.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 84. Fol. 722.; APF SOCG, Vol. 579. Fol. 473–479.+480.+481., Fol. 529.; APF SOCG, Vol. 580. Fol. 166–167., Fol. 168.; APF SOCG, Vol. 581. Fol. 102–103., Fol. 108.; APF SOCG, Vol. 585. Fol. 96–97.+98.; APF SOCG, Vol. 589. Fol. 271–272.; APF SOCG, Vol. 591. Fol. 154., Fol. 155.; APF SOCG, Vol. 592. Fol. 674–675.; APF SOCG, Vol. 593. Fol. 423–429., Fol. 431–432., Fol. 433–437., Fol. 469., Fol. 470.; APF SOCG, Vol. 599. Fol. 48., Fol. 49., Fol. 160–165., Fol. 168–171.; APF LDSC, Vol. 101. Fol. 9., Fol. 12., Fol. 18. Fol. 243., Fol. 270.; APF LDSC, Vol. 103. Fol. 4–5., Fol. 10–12., Fol. 99–100., Fol. 256–258., Fol. 274–276., Fol. 309–310., Fol. 327–328.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 163., Fol. 165., Fol. 433., Fol. 435.; HC, 1952. 123. 72 Fraknói, 1895. 422.; Hodinka, 1909. 529–542. 73 APF SOCG, Vol. 592. Fol. 375–376., Fol. 380.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 115–116.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 136., Fol. 137.

The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania

was not sanctified by the Apostolic Holy See. On February 5th , 1716 a compromise was reached and Bizánczy was appointed and confirmed as an Apostolic Vicar, Titular Bishop of Sebastopolis in Pontus, and Head of Church of the Ruthenians.74 However, several problems remained unresolved. The issue of jurisdiction was not decided, and Esztergom and Eger waged a real war regarding this issue. At the synod of the diocese held in Mukačevo in 1715, the clergy present declared that they insisted on keeping the stipulations of the church-union agreement.75 They did not want to recognise anybody but the Archbishop of Esztergom as their metropolite. Their strongest wish, the establishment of an independent diocese remained an unattained dream.76 The church-union of the Ruthenians therefore was half a success and did not fully reach its goal. After the church-union was signed, the Ruthenians still had to fight their landlords, the county and the bishop of Eger as well as the Apostolic Holy See. This latter kept questioning the raison d’être of the episcopate as late as 1771 since they were of the view that the episcopate itself was non-existent. The situation was tense with the Uniate Romanians as well who were in a more favourable situation: since they were accorded a diocese with a See in Făgăraş (Fogaras, Romania) and from the point of view of jurisdiction their bishops controlled the Uniate congregations in County Bihor (Bihar, Romania) and Maramureş (Máramaros, Romania).77

The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania On the eve of their church-union, the situation of the Romanians in Transylvania was quite special. Their bishop was ordained by the metropolitan of Wallachia with the approval of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople who was in turn under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alba Iulia of the Calvinist Reformed Church.78 Under the patronage of princes and princesses of Transylvania, Romanian schools, churches, and printing shops were established which played a major role in the

74 APF Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 244–251., Fol. 360–367., Fol. 495–497.; APF SOCG, Vol. 603. Fol. 137–143., Fol. 144., Fol. 145., Fol. 146–148., Fol. 153.+156., Fol. 154–155., Fol. 157–158.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 315., Fol. 317., Fol. 327., Fol. 336.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 173., Fol. 179.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 42. Pag. 157–159.; Zsatkovics, 1884. 778.; Fraknói, 1895. 424.; Hodinka, 1909. 221. 514.; HC, 1952. 348.; Sugár, 1984. 397.; Pirigyi, 1990. 148.; Botlik, 1997. 30. 75 APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 292–293. 76 Zsatkovics, 1884. 875–877.; Hodinka, 1909. 597–607. 622–625.; HC, 1958. 217.; Pirigyi, 1990. 165.; Pirigyi, 1991. 29.; Botlik, 1997. 39. 77 APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 193., Fol. 195., Fol. 224−233., Fol. 234−235.; Hodinka, 1909. 255. 78 Pirigyi, 1991, 30.

79

80

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

strengthening of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania. Similarly, to his predecessors, Michael Apafi I, Prince of Transylvania, saw this power in the Orthodox clergy and tried to extend their privileges as well as consolidate their financial and social status. He also provided state protection for them against the abuses of Hungarian landlords. However, overall, the Romanians’ situation was not arranged with care.79 Catholics realised first what needed to be done with the Romanian church in Transylvania. Jesuit father, Pál László Baranyi SJ (under the pseudonym László Bárány) (1657–1719), Roman Catholic parish priest of Alba Iulia started talks about church-union with Bishop Teofil Szerémi at the beginning of the 1690s.80 This mission was made easier by the patent issued by Emperor and King Leopold I on August 23d, 1692 in which they promised the Romanian clergy the same privileges as the Roman Catholic priests had.81 The Viennese Court authorised the Jesuit missionaries to spread the word among the Romanians that in case of church-union the Viennese Court was ready to offer political privileges not only to the Romanian clergy but also to laymen. This promise proved effective. On March 21st , 1697 at the Alba Iulia so-called “small” synod Teofil Szerémi along with twelve deans declared the church-union with the Roman Catholic Church.82 The priests present stipulated that the Uniate Romanian priests should receive the same privileges and right of not just the Roman Catholic clergy but also those of the ministers of the Protestant faith in Transylvania. Furthermore, they demanded a parish built in each village where a Uniate priest served the Lord and the community. Another important condition was that the clergy depended only upon its own bishop and no laymen could have control over them. The synod also dealt with the issue of calendar. Romanian clergy demanded not to expect them to use the “modern” Gregorian calendar as long as the Orthodox Church could use the Julian calendar in Transylvania. Lastly, Teofil Szerémi and his followers demanded that the Uniate church would be recognised as an approved denomination of Transylvania and not just a tolerated one.83 Bishop Teofil Szerémi proclaimed the church-union and its conditions again at the next synod in Alba Iulia held on June 10, 1697. 79 APF CP, Vol. 100. Fol. 68–77., Fol. 80–85.; APF FV, Vol. 6. Fol. 250–256.; R. Várkonyi, 1986. 887.; Tóth, 1994. 358–368. 80 ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 149. Fol. 20–30., Fol. 72.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 150. Fol. 21–26., Fol. 67.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 74., Fol. 78. 81 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 43–48.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 152–161.; Gyárfás, 1925. 131.; Miron, 2004. 35. 82 APF SOCG, Vol. 533. Fol. 401., Fol. 483.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 3. Fol. 39., Fol. 40, Fol. 41.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 53–56., Pag. 71.; PL AEV, SPK. No. 338/1–10.; Nilles, 1885. 165–169. 171–174; Gyárfás, 1925. 131.; Karácsonyi, 1985. 215–218.; Trócsányi, 1988. 281–285.; Pirigyi, 1990. 101.; Miron, 2004. 37. 39–40.; Nagy, 2018. 623−650. 83 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 72–75.

The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania

The negotiator on the Roman Catholic side, Jesuit fathers, Pál Baranyi SJ and his two collaborators, Gábor Hevenesi SJ and Márton Szentiványi SJ translated the declaration into Latin and sent it to the Viennese court.84 The process, however, seemed to come to a halt then because a few weeks after the declaration had been sent to the court Bishop Teofil Szerémi suddenly died. The matter was complicated even further when the Calvinist Reformed Church of Transylvania, the Romanian Orthodox anti-union clergy, the Metropolite of Bucharest (Bucureşti) (and of Wallachia) as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople learnt about the church-union. They did all in their power to “reverse” the churchunion that divided the Romanians: one part of them was for the church-union while the other half was against it.85 In the meantime, Bishop Teofil Szerémi’s successor, Athanasius Anghel (died in 1713) became a bishop. The new high priest was from a noble family. He studied theology in the College of Reformed Church in Alba Iulia. Bishop Athanasius was appointed bishop with the strong support of the Reformed Church on January 22nd , 1698 and was ordained by Theodosius, Metropolite of Bucharest who was of Greek origin.86 At the time of Athanasius’s ordination, Dositheos, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem was staying in Bucharest who handed an ultimatum containing 22 points to the new bishop. Dositheos wanted to find out whether Bishop Athanasius was still faithful to the Orthodox Church or not. The bishop gave an evasive answer. He did not want to take a stand openly at this stage when he was in talks with the Orthodox, the Protestant as well as the Roman Catholic churches.87 In the end, the Roman Catholics proved to be more efficient than the other denominations. The Jesuit fathers headed by Baranyi persuaded Bishop Athanasius to sign the church-union agreement. Bishop Athanasius understood that the church-union with the Roman Catholics served the interests of the Romanians in Transylvania best. It seemed important to him to have the support of the court if the church-union was made. Emperor and King Leopold I sent a document in this sense to the Governorship of Transylvania. The Emperor himself declared that the Romanian priests who accepted the church-union should receive the same privileges as the Roman Catholic clergy. Leopold I added that if the Romanians of Transylvania signed a church-union with any of the Protestant denominations then their priests would receive the same rights as the Protestant ministers.88

84 R. Várkonyi, 1986. 887.; Pirigyi, 1990. 101–102.; Pirigyi, 1991. 30. 85 ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 274–275. 86 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. 321. Pag. 345.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 333–337., Pag. 338.–339., Pag. 342–343., Pag. 344–345.; Gyárfás, 1925. 132.; Miron, 2004. 41.; Végsheő, 2007. 301–302. 422. 87 ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 8. Pag. 326–327.; ELTE EKK, CK. B. Vol. 59. Pag. 38–42.; Gyárfás, 1925. 132.; Pirigyi, 1990. 102. 88 ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 362–365.; Pirigyi, 1990. 103.

81

82

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

A few months later Cardinal Kollonich confirmed in a circular, dated June 2nd , 1698 that the Romanian clergy who accepted the church-union on condition they could keep their Eastern rites would receive the same privileges as the catholic clergy.89 The church-union, however, had to be confirmed by the Romanian Orthodox Church, too. After a few months’ preparation, the synod sat together in Alba Iulia between October 4th and 24th , 1698. Bishop Athanasius and thirty-eight deans along with him proclaimed the church-union again on the same conditions as Bishop Teofil Szerémi and his followers did at the so-called small synod of 1697.90 The official declaration of the church-union was sent to Vienna.91 A few months later Emperor and King Leopold I approved the church-union in a diploma issued on February 16th , 1699. In the decree the emperor repeated that all the Romanian priests who joined the church-union would receive the rights and privileges of the Roman Catholic clergy. Uniate priest became free from serfdom, were exempt of corvee and public works. Leopold I called the secular authorities to protect the Uniate clergy from various legal abuse.92 The diploma issued by the king was made public on September 19th , 1699 at the Transylvanian diet. In the meantime, conversions continued. Bishop Athanasius told the clergy under his jurisdiction at a synod held on October 30th , 1699 that he could envisage the church-union of the Romanian church only with the Roman Catholic Church.93 Since many priests joined the church-union thanks to the favourable conditions and privileges therefore the bishop thought it best to call a big synod where the previously signed church-unions would be reinforced. Bishop Athanasius called his followers to Alba Iulia again and at the big Romanian Council held between September 4th and 15th , 1700 fifty-four deans and 1563 priests signed again the union declaration.94 The court appreciated Athanasius’s efforts and Emeperor and King Leopold I appointed him as a Romanian Uniate Bishop of Transylvania in 1701. On behalf of the king, Baillif István Apor (1638–1704),

89 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 255–257., Pag. 355–366., Pag. 393–396.; Pirigyi, 1990. 103.; Miron, 2004. 45. 90 ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 157. Fol. 27.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 71–75., Pag. 79–80., Pag. 81–82.; Nilles, 1885. 196–198. 200–201. 205–211. 213.; Miron, 2004. 41–43. 91 ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 157. Fol. 22.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 11. Pag. 112–113.; Pirigyi, 1990. 103. 92 APF CP, Vol. 100. Fol. 86–88.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. 111–113. 123–124. p.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 8. Pag. 373.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 40. Pag. 372–375., Pag. 394–399.; Gyárfás, 1925. 134.; R. Várkonyi, 1986. 888; Pirigyi, 1990. 104. 93 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 91–96. 94 APF Acta SC, Vol. 71. Fol. 153., Fol. 254.; APF SOCG, Vol. 538. Fol. 324–325.; APF SOCG, Vol. 539. Fol. 79–87.; APF SOCG, Vol. 540. Fol. 44–49.; APF LDSC, Vol. 90. Fol. 39., Fol. 51., Fol. 168–169.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 170–176., Pag. 233–241., Pag. 247–253. Pag. 337.; Nilles, 1885. 207.; Pirigyi, 1990. 105.; Miron, 2004. 51. 55–56.; Galla, 2010. 158.

The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania

Treasurer of Transylvania, invested him with this office on June 25th , 1701.95 On the other hand, the Romanian Uniate clergy was not in an easy position because Serbian, Greek and Romanian Orthodox monks flooded Transylvania and turned common people against the church-union and tried to stir them up against the Uniate clergy. This undermining was especially successful with the Romanians in the Transylvanian province of Ţara Bârsei (Barcaság, Romania). Gábor Nagyszeghi, a former Jesuit father, sent a protest note to the monarch against the church-union saying that it caused discord among the Romanians.96 Nagyszeghi was “rewarded” with imprisonment. Primarily the clergy was eligible for the privileges and not the laymen.97 To make matters worse, Dositheos Patriarch of Jerusalem arrived in Transylvania and in his sermons, he preached against the church-union. This brought its fruit and kept the division of the Romanians in Transylvania regarding the church-union.98 The Protestants of Transylvania were also weary of the church-union and not without good reason. When the Diploma Leopoldinum was issued they were already afraid that if the Catholics won over the Romanians that would be at the costs of the Protestants since their church-union would break the established confessional balance and the Catholics’ position would be strengthened. Therefore, the Protestants also tried to divide the Romanians and were against the church-union and rejected it. They also appointed a new bishop against Athanasius in the person of Ion Tisca who was faithful to the Orthodox Church.99 The execution of the Diploma accorded to the Romanians was slow. Many of the clerks and bureaucrats were Protestants who delayed the privileges to be accorded to the Romanians. To make matters worse for the Romanian clergy, these privileges were also against the interests of the landlords in Transylvania. Emperor and King Leopold I instructed the Governorship of Transylvania in his decree dated April 21st , 1701 to execute the diploma for the sake of the church-union.100 In this decree, Leopold I regulated the legal status of the uniates. He repeated that the Uniate clergy was eligible for the same rights and privileges as the Catholics and urged 95 APF SOCG, Vol. 600. Fol. 225–229.; APF CP, Vol. 100. Fol. 88–94.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 123−127., Fol. 129−132.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 3. Fol. 98.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 28–33., Pag. 34–35., Pag. 36–37., Pag. 179–181., Pag. 183–186., Pag. 233–241., Pag. 247–253.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 42. Pag. 21–22., Pag. 55–56.; Nilles, 1885. 227–229. 230–232. 281–286.; Hodinka, 1909. 254.; Gyárfás, 1925. 137.; Pirigyi, 1990. 106.; De Vries, 1998. 3–26.; Miron, 2004. 46.; Shore, 2007. 27–57. 96 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 83–86.; Hodinka, 1909. 253.; R. Várkonyi, 1986. 889.; Szirtes, 2018. 343−381. 97 Nilles, 1885. 221. 98 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 259–260., Pag. 267–272.; R. Várkonyi, 1986. 888. 99 Nilles, 1885. 263–269. 100 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 38–39.

83

84

The Uniate Policy of the Habsburg Court

the publication of new catechisms. The king also added that the Uniate bishop can have only private correspondence with princes and heads of church. The king’s regulation extended to the stoles and the management of the assets of the Uniate church as well as the roadmap of establishing church schools. The appointment of a Uniate bishop would be the right of the monarch.101 The Diploma, however, did not reach its goal and could not win over new people for the cause of the church-union. The Rákóczi’s War of Independence worked against the church-union and many priests retuned to the Orthodox faith. Bishop Athansius’s position became untenable and his authority lessened.102 Bishop Athanasius died in 1713 deserted.103 His vicar, János Pataki Nemes OSBM (1680–1727), a former seminarist of Urbanian College (Collegium Urbanum) in Rome, the Seminary of Propaganda Fide founded by the Bull of Pope Urban VIII (1623−1644) in 1627, succeeded him who was elected bishop at the synod held in Sibiu (Nagyszeben, Romania) in 1715. His appointment was confirmed by the Viennese court.104 The new bishop had to confront the Orthodox Church that was gathering momentum.105 His position was further weakened by György Mártonffy (1663−1721), Roman catholic Bishop’s activities. Mártonffy, referring to Canon 9 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, did not recognise Pataki as a bishop but as his own vicar.106 The issue of establishing an independent Uniate episcopate was raised.107 The Apostolic Holy See made a surprisingly fast decision: disregarding Bishop Mártonffy’s protests Pope Innocent XIII (1721–1724), issued a Bull that started with the line Ratione congruit, founded a new diocese for the Uniate Romanians, Serbians, Ruthenians, and Greek, with centre of Făgăraş as Its See on February 3rd , 1721. The first diocesan-bishop was the above-mentioned

101 Pirigyi, 1990. 107. 102 Nilles, 1885. 309–313.; Hermann, 1973. 353–354.; Miron, 2004. 57.; Galla, 2005. 142. 144. 274. 342. 103 APF Acta SC, Vol. 83. Fol. 679–680. 104 APF Acta SC, Vol. 86. Fol. 231–234., APF Acta SC, Vol. 87. Fol. 141–143., Fol. 201.; APF SOCG, 569. Fol. 582., Fol. 606.; APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 446–447.; APF SOCG, Vol. 577. Fol. 303–304.; APF SOCG, Vol. 605. Fol. 317–334.; APF SOCG, Vol. 609. Fol. 68.; APF SOCG, Vol. 627. Fol. 288., Fol. 289., Fol. 290.; APF LDSC, Vol. 99. Fol. 107.; ELTE EKK, CK. B. Vol. 20. Pag. 201–202., Pag. 203–205. 105 APF SC, FUT. Vol. 4. Fol. 86., Fol. 94., Fol. 95. 106 APF Acta SC, Vol. 89/I. Fol. 4., Fol. 179.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 90. Fol. 677–679.; APF SOCG, Vol. 618. Fol. 300., Fol. 396., Fol. 398–399.; APF SOCG, Vol. 627. Fol. 288., Fol. 289., Fol. 290.; APF LDSC, Vol. 107. Fol. 220−221.; APF LDSC, Vol. 108. Fol. 94−95., Fol. 353.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 203.; GYFL, I/1a. 21. p.; Nilles, 1885. 411–413. 416–417.; Gyárfás, 1925. 138. p.; Miron, 2004. 65–72.; Galla, 2005. 274. 107 APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 169.

The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania

János Pataki Nemes.108 King Charles III (1711–1740) gave the royal manors of Armenopolis and Sâmbăta de Jos (Alsószombatfalva, Romania) that would yield an annual 3000 Florins to the new diocese.109 The church-union did not reach its goal because in fact it was a political reform made from top down. Instead of settling religious affairs, it caused chaos and endless controversies and conflicts among Uniate Romanians in Transylvania.

108 APF CP, Vol. 100. Fol. 94–98.; APF SC, FGCDSTU. Vol. 1. Fol. 181. Fol. 183. Fol. 191.; ELTE EKK, CK. B. Vol. 20. Pag. 206–212.; Gyárfás, 1925. 140.; HC, 1952. 203.; Varga, 2007. 114. 109 Karácsonyi, 1985. 354–355.; Pirigyi, 1990. 120–121.; Pirigyi, 1991. 31.; Miron, 2004. 74.; Nagy, 2016. 82−83.

85

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

The Armenians’ Arrival in Transylvania The history of the Armenians in Transylvania, similarly to the Armenian communities in Poland, Crimea and Moldavia, goes back to the 11th century when the Armenian Kingdoms in the Motherland lost their political independence. The Seljuk-Turkish and Mongolian invasions of the following centuries accelerated the exodus of the native Armenians. A considerable part of the refugees settled down on the Crimean Peninsula (or the Crimea) and in the Russian principalities. The migration was intensified when the Cilician Armenian Kingdom was integrated into the Mamluk Empire in 1375. A significant percentage of the population fled to Poland or Moldavia and enlarged the Armenian communities that had lived there. The exodus continued in the Armenian Motherland as well since at the end of the 14th century Khan Tamerlane (Timur Lenk) (1380–1405)’s army destroyed Armenia. A decisive change occurred in the life of the Armenian community in Crimea when the Ottoman Turks occupied Kaffa in 1475 and the Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians who lived there fled in part to Poland and in part to Moldavia. The Armenians settled down in Moldavia especially in the towns of Iaşi, Suceava, Focşani, and Botoşani.1 At the end of the 13th century there were already some Armenians in Transylvania. There is no data of masses being there but their presence in Transylvania during the 14th century was palpable especially in the Saxon towns of Braşov (Kronstadt/Brassó, Romania) and Sibiu where there were Armenians in a great number.2 Most of them were merchants from the Balkans. We also have data of their church or smaller parish. There is an engraving of a seal found in Tălmaciu (Nagytalmács, Romania), a village near city of Sibiu from 1355 in which the name of an Armenian Bishop Martin (Martinos) and the name of a local Armenian parish can be seen.3 Armenian merchants moved to Sibiu from the Crimean Peninsula or the Balkans (more precisely through the Turnu Roşu mountain pass) who dealt in Eastern spices. They held such a strong monopoly in the spice trade of the town that the

1 Lukácsy, 1859. 12. 63–65.; Nistor, 1912. 55–57. 2 MNL-OL, DF. No. 286 699.; At the middle of the 13th century in Esztergom, the medieval capital of Hungary there was a sizeable Armenian community for whom King Béla IV (1235−1270) provided exemption from customs duties in 1243. MNL-OL, DL. No. 14 211.; Mutafian, 2018. 27−33. 3 Zimmermann –Werner – Müller, 1897. 106–107.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 358.

88

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Saxon merchants pleaded with the Hungarian Royal Court. The Saxons complained that the Armenian merchants were not satisfied with holding the wholesale market in spices and making profit of it but opened retail shops to the disadvantage of the Saxon merchants of Sibiu. King Louis I Great of Angevin (Anjou) (1342–1382) prohibited the Armenian and other non-local merchants (mercatores advenae: Greek, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Jews) to have retail business in Sibiu.4 In Braşov, the Armenians shared a church with the local Greek community in 1339.5 In the period of the Transylvanian Principality several sources provide information about the Armenians. Under the principality of Stephen (István) Báthori (1571–1586) Armenian merchants came to Transylvania in considerable numbers due to the re-opening of the Transylvanian part of the Levant trade route. One of the examples for this is the temporary suspension of trade for Armenian merchants in 1581 by the Prince of Transylvania as a response to the complaint of the Saxon merchants who were jealously protecting their trade positions in Transylvania. The Transylvanian Diet passed a law on November 4th, 1600 which threatened the merchants of Levant (Greeks, Armenians, Dalmatians and Romanians) with measures of retorsion if they sell their merchandise in non-approved places. In Approbatae Constitutiones, the Transylvanian Book of Law promulgated in 1653, the participation of the merchants of Levant in the trade of Transylvania was regulated. In Szeklerland (Ţinutul Secuiesc/Székelyföld/Terra Siculorum), it was ordered by the representatives of the Szeklerland’s provinces Ciuc (Csíkszék), Gheorghen (Gyergyószék), and Caşin (Kászonszék, Romania) that the merchants of Levant, Armenians among others, should not trade with their goods during mass.6 In the 16th and 17th centuries Armenian merchants came to Transylvania from Moldavia as well. In a manuscript written in Armenian language found in Matenadaran Archive, Yerevan an Armenian merchant called Xač’ik Kaffayec’i was mentioned who had a shop in Tirgu Mureş (Marosvásárhely, Romania). He was put up in the house of another Armenian merchant whose name was Ōhannēs Ĵułayec’i. From 1654 on there is information of Armenian merchants in greater number who came from Moldavia and visited the fairs in the province of Gheorghen.7 An Armenian merchant, Simēon T’orossean mentioned that there were sizable Armenian communities in Elisabethopolis and Şumuleu. This information, however, is not confirmed by other documents.8

4 Katona, 1790. 713–714.; Pach, 1975. 4. 25. 5 Zimmermann–Werner–Müller, 1902. 246–247.; Zimmermann–Werrner–Müller, 1937. 174.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 358.; Pach, 1975. 7. 6 Veszely, 1860. 22.; Tarisznyás, 1982. 215.; Pál, 2006. 29.; Garda, 2007. 227. 7 Abrahamyan, 1964. 352. 8 K’olanĵian, 1967. 359.

The Armenians’ Arrival in Transylvania

The Armenian refugees in Transylvania we know of can be divided into two categories. The first bigger group arrived around 1668 led by Bishop Minas AlēksaneanZilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i (1610−1686) from Moldavia fleeing a series of pogroms there.9 The pogroms were inflicted upon the Armenians because of their involvement in the uprising against the Voivode of Moldavia. The other group of Armenians came to Transylvania from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (from the province of Podolia) and Kamianets-Podilskyi due to the military campaign led by the Ottoman Turks.10 These Armenian refugees chose Transylvania as their destination because many Armenians heard about the circumstances in Transylvania and also for a confessional reason. They were aware of the relatively tolerant confessional relations in Transylvania. This was a decisive factor since the Armenians could also immigrate to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth where they were well aware of the churchunion in 1627 passed by Nikol Torosowicz and the intolerant proselytisation.11 The majority of the Armenians in Transylvania were town-dwellers which is well described by the surnames of the Armenian immigrants, e.g.: Asc’i (from Iaşi), Urmanc’i (from Roman), Poǰanc’i (from Botoşani), Fokšanc’i (from Focşani), Suč’ovc’i or Se č’ovc’i (from Suceava), or Hutinc’i (from Hotin).12 Armenian historians give us a more precise description of the origin of the Armenians in Transylvania. According to their studies many of the Armenians came to Transylvania from Moldavia. Around 1330 they arrived, in great numbers, to the towns of Botoşani and Iaşi from the Crimea. This is supported by the fact that the first Armenian stone church in Botoşani was consecrated in 1350 while in Iaşi in 1395.13 In 1408 Alexander I (Good), Voivode of Moldavia (1400–1432) invited Armenians from Poland and gave them trade privileges and provided free religious practice. These Armenian groups settled in the towns of Černivci (Czernowitz/ Çernoviţa, Ukraine), and Suceava.14 The Voivode of Moldavia invited another group of Armenians who settled down a decade later in the towns of Cetatea Alba (Bilhorod-Dnistrovskii, Ukraine), Hotin (Choczim, Ukraine), and Galaţi. Armenian ecclesiatical almanacs from Poland also prove that from the end of the 14th century a sizeable Armenian community lived in Moldavia. The church sent clergy there from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As we shall see in subsequent subchapters,

9 APMV, MS. No. 771. Fol. 124.; APMV, MS. No. 775. Fol. 124.; MA, MS. No. 9484. Fol. 304.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81. 10 APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 278–279.; Lukácsy, 1859. 14–15.; Tarisznyás, 1982. 215.; Pál, 2006. 28.; Pap, 2018. 109. 11 Mutafian, 2018. 137−174. 12 K’olanĵian,1967. 360. 13 Dan, 1891. 10–14. 14 Schünemann, 1933. 214–217.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 360–361.

89

90

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

the Apostolic Archbishop in Lviv had jurisdiction over the Armenian communities not only in Moldavia, but also in Wallachia, Bulgaria, Crimea, and Thrace.15 In the 17th century mainly Franciscan fathers visited the Catholics in Moldavia. In their reports sent to the Propaganda Fide they briefly summed up the ecclesiastic situation of the Armenians. They reported that the bishop of local Armenians had his See in the Saint Oxan Monastery outside of the town Suceava.16 According to the account of Marco Bandini (died in 1650), Titular Bishop of Marcianopolis, dated March 2nd , 1648 in Bacău (Bákó, Romania) the bishop of the Armenian Apostolic Church had his See in an Armenian monastery near Galaţi. He also mentioned that there was a bishopric in Suceava as well where the Armenian high priests resided also in a monastery located outside the town. He also added that the Armenians had four stone churches in the town.17 Some precision is needed regarding Armenian settlements in Transylvania. Data prove that Armenians from Moldavia came to Transylvania earlier in a smaller number. This was facilitated by the privilege the Prince gave to Gheorgheni in 1607 to hold national fairs. The Armenians living in neighbouring countries (the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth and Moldavia) were attracted to the three annual fairs as well as the weekly markets. First, they came as merchants and later they settled down in Gheorgheni in small groups.18 The first group found home in the town in 1637 while in 1654 several Armenian merchants settled down with their families led by two brothers, Vardik Martiros and Azbēy Hĕrj Gandran.19 According to the findings of Kristóf Lukácsy, between 1668 and 1672 the entire Armenian community of Moldavia fled from religious persecutions.20 This, however, is an exaggeration and is an unfounded claim because most of the Armenians remained in the territory of the Moldavian Principality despite the persecutions. On the other hand, it is true that most of the refugees went to Transylvania and found a new home in Szeklerland thanks to Prince Michael Apafi I. The Prince was of the mind that Armenian merchants and craftsmen may help boost the economy

15 K’olanĵian, 1967. 363.; Petrowicz, 1971. 30. 16 Benda, 2003. 343. 357. 401. 409. 534. 573. 613. 615–616. 679. 685. 716. 717.; Ferro, 2005. 30–31. 125–150. 17 APF SOCG, Vol. 427. Fol. 436.; APF FV, Vol. 8. Fol. 74–77.; APF FVC, Vol. 21. Fol. 3–32.; MNL-OL, A 57. Libri Regii. Vol. 20. 373−378. p.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 248.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 32.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.); Ferro, 2005. 87. 18 Garda, 2007. 227.; Garda, 2010. 8. 19 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 147.; Dumitriu–Snagov, 1973. 302−307. 325–326.; Ávedik, 1896. 68. 86. 125.; Kölönte, 1910. 127.; Hodinka, 1912. 12. 19−20. 25.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 352.; Tarisznyás, 1982. 215.; Garda, 1992. 18.; Pál, 2006. 28–29.; Garda, 2007. 227.; Shore, 2007. 4–5. 20 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 32.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; Lukácsy, 1859. 15−16.; Petrowicz, 1988. 80.

The Armenians’ Arrival in Transylvania

of the principality which by then had a small margin for action. Another factor not to disregard is the fact that Prince Michael Apafi I wanted to play the Armenians against the Saxons and the Greeks.21 Armenian refugees settled down primarily in Albia Iulia, Batoş (Botsch/Bátos, Romania), Bistriţa (Bistritz/Beszterce, Romania), Braşov, Canta (Kanta, Romania), Ditrău (Dittersdorf/Gyergyóditró/Ditró, Romania), Frumoasa, Gheorgheni, Gurghiu (Görgényszentimre, Romania), Petelea (Birk/ Petele, Romania), Remetea (Gyergyóremete, Romania), Sibiu, Suseni (Pränzdorf/ Marosfelfalu, Romania), and Tirgu Mureş.22 Prince Michael Apafi I had a very narrow margin from 1661 on and the fate of the weaker and weaker Transylvania under the declining Ottoman influence was in the hands of the major powers. It is well-known that Transylvania was devastated by the military campaigns of the 1660s not only politically but also economically. Prince Apafi I wanted to stop the return of the Armenians to Moldavia at the end of the 1670s since they decided to move back to Moldavia once the religious persecutions subsided. Therefore, on October 25th , 1680 the prince granted free trade and settlement privileges in the hope that the Armenians would boost the Transylvanian economy with their competence and zeal.23 The status quo concerning Transylvania started to shift irrevocably following the fiasco of the Ottoman Turks near Vienna in 1683 and political moves were initiated by the Habsburgs. After 1690 Michael (Mihály) Apafi II (1690–1713) was the Prince of Transylvania in name only since real power was exercised by the Governorhip of Transylvania that was controlled by the Habsburgs. The Governorship of Transylvania also gave Armenians privileges; the privilege of 1696 allowed free commercial, confessional and legal rights to the fifty-sixty Armenian families who settled down in Elisabethopolis in 1692.24 Emperor and King Leopold I in Diploma Leopoldinum of 1690 kept Transylvania’s separate status from Hungary and ensured free religious practice to three nations and four accepted religions. At the same time, Vienna strongly supported Catholicisation. Regarding this no mention is made yet of the Armenian community.25 It is probable that at the turn of the 1689–1690, the conversion of Armenians

21 Pray, 1775. 170–171. 22 NSA, ANP. Sygn.7. Fol. 57–58.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137., Fol. 173.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 193–209.; Lukácsy, 1859. 17–18.; Alt’unean, 1877. 65–103.; Gopcsa, 1895. 376.; Govrikean, 1896. 8. 10–12.; Szeghalmy, 1942. 372.; Roszko, 1964. 147–149.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 142–145.; Petrowicz, 1988. 81.; Molnár, 2007. 27. 23 Govrikean, 1896. 14–15.; Szongott, 1901. 28–31. 97–100.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 353.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 361. 24 K’olanĵian, 1967. 361. 363. 25 Szongott, 1901. 19–28.; Trócsányi, 1983. 168–172.

91

92

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

to Roman Christian faith was not on the agenda. On behalf of Prince Michael Apafi II the court accorded privileges to the Armenians according to which the Armenian communities were entitled to elect their own judges whose jurisdiction extended to all Armenians in Transylvania. These judges represented the Armenian community in legal matters at the Governorship of Transylvania. The Governorship appointed Dániel Tódor (T’ēodoros Daniēłean) as supreme judge (Iudex Supremus Armenorum in Transilvania) in 1696.26 No precise data is available concerning the number of Armenians who settled down in Transylvania. The fluctuation of the Armenian community was significant. Many Armenian families moved back to Moldavia from the end of 1670 when the political situation normalised in Moldavia. The Armenian Apostolic Church appointed Anat’olios Ŗusot to replace Bishop Minas T’oxat’ec’i who fled the country. Anat’olios Ŗusot sent out a call for Armenians to return to Moldavia and a considerable number of Armenians answered his call and moved back to Moldavia from Transylvania. The new prince in Moldavia, Anton Ruset bestowed an even wider range of commercial privileges upon the Armenians which may have helped them to return to Moldavia. At Matenadaran Archive in Yerevan, there are a few manuscripts which prove that the migration of Armenians from Transylvania at the turn of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries was considerable. These documents stated that the Armenian population of Iaşi, Suceava and Botoşani grew. The „new” immigrants came from Transylvania and were all Catholic adhering to the church-union. Not long after they settled down in Moldavia Bishop Anat’olios reconverted them to the Armenian Apostolic faith.27 What makes even more difficult to determine the precise number of the Armenian community in Transylvania is that the Armenians went to Transylvania in several waves and from different regions. During Rákóczi’s War of Independence in 1707, Oxendio Virziresco, Bishop of the Uniate Catholic Church in Transylvania, himself complained to the Apostolic Holy See that many Armenians had moved back to Moldavia.28 According to tradition, the estimated number of the Armenian community in Transylvania was about 3000 families, fifteen to twenty thousand people. This data is from Jesuit Father Rudolf Bzensky’s description. He, however, meant the refugees who settled down in Moldavia, not the ones in Transylvania.29 Many authors erroneously adopted this figure repeating that three thousand Armenian families from Moldavia settled down in Transylvania. In any case, talking about

26 MNL-OL, E 156. Urbaria et Conscriptiones, Regestrata. No. 165: 4.; MN-OL, F 43. 4. 1702. No. 789.; MNL-OL, F 234. I. 13. d.; Lukácsy, 1859. 16–17.; Govrikean, 1896. 17–18.; Trócsányi, 1983. 171–172.; Petrowicz, 1988. 82.; Pál, 2006. 30. 27 ELTE EKK, CH. 21. Pag. 81.; Ališan, 1896a. 127. 197.; Éble, 1915. 13.; Benda, 2003. 717. 28 APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 20.; Lukácsy, 1859. 18–19. 29 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 21.

The Armenians’ Arrival in Transylvania

three thousand Armenian families or fifteen to twenty thousand Armenians seems an exaggeration at first sight. This seems to be supported by a letter written on April 6th , 1689 by Giacomo Cantelmi/Cantelmo (1645–1702), Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Palaestina and Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, sent to Edoardo/Odorardo Cybo (1619–1705), Secretary of the Propaganda Fide, the missionary institution of the Apostolic Holy See to oversee missions where Nuncio Cantelmi estimated the number of the Armenian community in Transylvania to two thousand.30 Judit Pál, Transylvanian Hungarian historian, published a note-worthy study regarding the number of the Armenian settlers. She doubted that the Armenians in Transylvania numbered fifteen to twenty thousand. The first census of the Armenians took place in Elisabethopolis in 1698 from the time of the Archdeacon Elia Mendrul’s affair. In the village thirty-seven heads of family and fifty-three adult men were counted.31 After Bishop Oxendio Virziresco died the entire Armenian community in Transylvania had a census. Then in Elisabethopolis there were sixty-nine heads of family, six widows and ten beggars. In Gheorgheni apart from the heads of family four or five widows and two-three beggars were counted.32 In Gurghiu there were thirtytwo heads of family, two widows and four beggars. In Frumoasa fifteen, in Suseni seventeen, in Petelea seven, in Bahnea (Szászbonyha, Romania) three, in Şumuleu four, in Braşov two, in Târgu Secuiesc (Kézdivásárhely, Romania) one Armenian head of family was counted at the census.33 The first census we know of in Armenopolis took place in 1716: a hundred and eleven Armenian lots and a hundred and thirty heads of family were mentioned.34 In Bistriţa, however, where the wealthier stratum of the Armenian leaders settled down in 1712 only twenty-two Armenian families were counted.35 The Saxons drove away the Armenians in 1712 using the outbreak of plague as a pretext. The Armenians moved into the estate in Armenopolis acquired from the Viennese court in 1700.36 Some Armenians, however, remained in the town. In the annual inventory of the Greek commercial company (Compania Graeca) in Braşov in 1733 there was an Armenian merchant called Jakab (Yakob) Kozák from Bistriţa whose parents had moved to Transylvania from 30 APF Acta SC, Vol. 59. Fol. 165.; APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 103.; APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 610., Fol. 612.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81.; MNL-OL, B 2. 1713. No. 45., No. 75.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 5., Pag. 32.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137.; Illia, 1730. 74.; Benkő, 1778. 121.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 361.; Trócsányi, 1986. 1000–1001.; Petrowicz, 1988. 87.; Balla, 2017. 33. 31 MNL-OL, F 46. Ügyiratok [Actes]. 1698. No. 50.; Pál, 2006. 31. 32 Pál-Antal, 2009. 9. 33 MNL-OL, F 49. Vegyes conscriptiók [Mixed Conscriptions]. 5 Cs. 13. Fasc.; Kovács, 2006. 52; Pál, 2006. 31. 34 Szongott, 1901. 117. 35 K’olanĵian, 1967. 367. 36 Szongott, 1901. 110–116.; Pál, 2006. 30.

93

94

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Moldavia. He declared that since he was born (more than thirty years before in Bistriţa) he had been under the jurisdiction of the judge in the town.37 At the beginning of the 18th century (more precisely in 1716) about 323 heads of family were counted. Multiplying it by five we can see that the number of the Armenians in Transylvania did not reach two-thousand people.38 On the other hand, the fluctuation of the Armenians in Transylvania was very high. The Tartar incursions in 1690, the rejection of the faith in 1692 in Bistriţa, the Elia Mendrul Case in 1697, the Rákóczi’s War of Independence as well as the repopulation policy of the Moldavian voivodes after 1683 made an impact on the number of the Armenian population in Transylvania. Elisabethopolis burnt down during the Rákóczi uprising. A part of the population moved back to Moldavia. Frumoasa was attacked by the Tartars from Crimea in 1694 and the Armenians were taken as prisoners.39 The survivors joined other Armenian settlements and only a few families moved back to Frumoasa after the Rákóczi’s War of Independence. This shows how intensive the movements of the Armenian population were in Transylvania in this period. In her study Judit Pál called attention to the constant appearance of Armenians until the middle of the 18th century. She excluded the possibility of Armenian “inflow” mass migration into Transylvania between 1668 and 1672.40 On the other hand, at the beginning of the 19th century Minas Bžškeanc’ OMech., a Mechitarist father and historian from Venice, visiting the Armenian Uniate parishes in Eastern and Central Europe, in his report mentioned six-thousand people in Armenopolis.41 The Armenian scholar, Suren K’olanǰian, however, estimated the number of Armenians in the 18th century to 10,000 or 15,000 while in the 20th century 20,000 people.42

The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685) The Armenian Uniate Archbishop called himself not only the Archbishop of Lviv but also the Armenian Uniate Bishop of Moldavia and Wallachia. The question imposes on what grounds in church law could the archbishop claim that when from the beginning of the 16th century the Armenian Apostolic Episcopate in Moldavia and Wallachia functioned in practice as an independent diocese?

37 MNL-OL, F 43. 2. 1701. No. 466–467.; MNL-OL, F 234. VI/d. 4. Fasc.; Pál, 2006. 30. 38 Pál, 2006. 31. 39 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 147–148.; MNL-OL, F 49. 5 Cs. 13. Fasc.; Kovács, 2006. 54.; Pál, 2006. 32. 40 APF SC, FA. Vol. 10. Fol. 29.; Pál, 1997. 104–120.; Pál, 1999. 64–73.; Pál, 2005.; Kovács, 2006. 53. 41 Bžškeanc’, 1830. 193–196. 209.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 143.; Vörös, 1983. 131. 42 K’olanĵian, 1967. 365–366.

The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685)

It is not easy to answer this question but to avoid misunderstandings it is important to clarify why Lviv insisted so much on keeping Moldavia and Transylvania under its ecclesiastic jurisdiction. The Armenian bishop and his colleagues said they had documents that proved that the Armenians in Moldavia and Wallachia had always been under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Archbishop in Lviv. As a result, the Archbishop of Lviv considered the Armenian refugees who fled Moldavia and moved to Transylvania members of his own jurisdiction.43 It is known from late medieval Armenian church-history of Eastern and Central Europe that Armenian Catholicos Theodore I (1377–1392) (T’ēodoros Kilikec’i) ordained Yovhannēs Nasredinean I (1380–1415), born in the Armenian Motherland, as an Archbishop of Poland, Russia and Wallachia (Valachia) in 1380.44 The Catholicos extended the jurisdiction of the above-mentioned Armenian high priest as Armenian Apostolic Archbishop also to Moldavia in the rank of a bishop in a new bull (kondak). Catholicos Theodore I specified in concrete terms the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Lviv that extended to the towns of Suceava, Iaşi, Kiev (Kyiv), Volodymyr-Volynskyi (Włodzimierz-Wołyńsk, Ukraine), Luck (Łuck, Ukraine), Kamianets-Podilskyi, and Lviv.45 Catholicos James III (1408–1411) (Yakob Ssec’i) allowed the Archbishop of Lviv in 1407 to appoint the heads of the four stone churches of Lviv and the Armenian congregations of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Suceava, and Kiev from among his close colleagues, without the approval of the catholicoi.46 About forty years later on August 17th , 1445, Catholicos Gregory X (1443–1466) (Grigor Makwec’i Ĵalalbēkean) told the Armenians of Poland that he approved of the election of Awedik Ilovec’i (1441–1460) as archbishop. At the same time, the Catholicos appointed Awedik Ilovec’i temporarily as the bishop of Suceava in Moldavia, therefore the Archbishopric of Lviv had jurisdiction over the Armenians of Moldavia.47 Catholicos Gregory X did the same with Archbishop Awedik Ilovec’i’s successor, Xač’atur Ilovec’i (1461–1481) whom the community elected archbishop based on ius eligendi and appointed thereby as bishop of the Armenians in Moldavia. Catholicos Gregory X’s successor, Aristaces II (1466–1469) (Aristakēs At’or.akal) confirmed Xač’atur Ilovec’i as Archbishop of Lviv and Bishop of Moldavia. Furthermore, Catholicos Aristaces II specified in his pastoral letter to which towns and regions the jurisdiction of the archbishop extended.48 However, keeping Moldavia under their control must have been a lot of work for the archbishops. In 1508 and 1509 Catholicos Serge III (1484–1515) (Sargis Miwsayl) appointed Father Simon

43 44 45 46 47 48

Lukácsy, 1859. 65. 68.; Petrowicz, 1988. 82. Petrowicz, 1971. 26.; Petrowicz, 1988. 83. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; Petrowicz, 1971. 29–30.; Petrowicz, 1988. 83. Petrowicz, 1971. 34–36.; Petrowicz, 1988. 83. Bžškeanc’, 1830. 110.; Ališan, 1896a. 225–226.; Petrowicz, 1971. 65. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; Petrowicz, 1971. 71–72.

95

96

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

(Simēon vardapet) as the Armenian Bishop of Moldavia while Moldavia remained under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop in Lviv.49 The Archbishops of Lviv always tried to extend their influence over the Armenian communities in Moldavia. At the time of Archbishop Hunanean this tradition was still alive. Until the church-union with the Roman Catholic Church took place, the Armenian catholicoi formulated the bulls to appoint and ordain the Archbishop in Lviv that they respected the right of the local community to elect their church officials. In the documents, however, they defined the ecclesiastic jurisdiction of the Armenian archbishops which also extended to the Armenian Episcopate of Moldavia.50 When Anti-Catholicos Melkizedek arrived in or rather fled to Lviv in April 1626 he appointed Nikol Torosowicz as an archbishop.51 According to his bull dated January 8th , 1627 he ordained Torosowicz not only as the Armenian Archbishop in Poland but also Bishop of Moldavia.52 Although Hunanean’s relationship to Archbishop Torosowicz was not ideal, he referred to this legal basis in his letter written to the Propaganda Fide in 1686 stating that the Archbishop of Lviv had jurisdiction over the Armenian communities in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Moldavia and Wallachia. Since a bigger group of Armenians led by Bishop Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i fled to Transylvania therefore he considered these Armenians to be under Lviv’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction, too.53 A fragmented document prepared in August 1700 is an important source in the matter of jurisdiction in which the job description of the Archbishop in Lviv was outlined and emphasised that the Armenian high priest exercised his jurisdiction over the Armenians not only spiritually but also de facto. It was also pointed out in the document that in ecclesiastical matters the Archbishop of Lviv exercised jurisdiction over the Armenians in Moldavia. The Archbishop directed the archdiocese in fact as a Vicar, having the right to ordain priests and establish parishes. Vardan Hunanean inherited from his predecessor, Nikol Torosowicz a Uniate Archbishopric although his predecessor was in conflict with the heads of the Armenian Apostolic Church regarding Moldavia.54 In response to this, the Armenian Apostolic Church or rather Catholicos Philip I appointed Father Isaac (Sahak vardapet)55 as Bishop of Moldavia to whom Torosow-

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Nistor, 1912. 109.; Petrowicz, 1971. 75.; Petrowicz, 1988. 84. Šahaziz, 1947. 26–28. Petrowicz, 1950. 18.; Petrowicz, 1988. 84. Petrowicz, 1950. 25. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 100.; Petrowicz, 1988. 85. APF SOCG, Vol. 535. Fol. 148. Ališan, 1896a. 8.; Lukácsy, 1859. 66.; Petrowicz, 1988. 85.

The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685)

icz could not extend his jurisdiction. When Bishop Isaac died in 1649 the Armenian Apostolic Church appointed Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i vardapet as the Armenian Bishop of Moldavia who fled to Transylvania with his followers in 1668 and 1669. Probably invited by Archbishop Hunanean, Bishop Minas visited Lviv at the end of 1686 to talk about the church-union of the Armenians in Moldavia (Transylvania). Therefore, when Hunanean met Minas, he could recommend the church-union almost right away. Thus, it is probable that, should the church-union have been signed Minas, he could have acted as the Uniate Bishop of Transylvania and Moldavia. This way following the traditions Lviv could have exercised jurisdiction over the future Armenian Uniate episcopate with the approval of the Apostolic Holy See. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, the office of Nikol Torosowicz was not successful as far as the church-union was concerned. At the beginning of 1681, the Apostolic Holy See lost patience and decided to depose the archbishop. In his stead, Vardan Hunanean, Titular Bishop of Epiphania in Syria, who had been a potential candidate for some time, was appointed who was on a mission in Armenia then.56 In the meantime, in 1681, Archbishop Torosowicz died in Lviv before being deposed. The archbishop left behind an archbishopric fallen apart organisationally and devoid of authority.57 The Propaganda Fide understood they had to appoint someone in Lviv who was suitable, was trusted by the local community and was well versed in both Latin and Armenian church-traditions. It was also known that Torosowicz’s church-union did not extend to all the Armenians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the end, the Apostolic Holy See found the right person in Vardan Hunanean who met all expectations and could carry through and complete the church-union and transform the Uniate Armenian Church to fit the Latin rites. The Apostolic Holy See intended to build an Armenian Uniate bridge head towards the Eastern European Armenian Diasporas as well as the territories within the Armenian Motherland.58 Hunanean was born on February 14th , 1644 in a small village (Łrzu) near Tokat (T’oxat’, Turkey) in Anatolia as one of the sons of a local Armenian priest.59 The parents sent the boy of outstanding intellect to the Seminary of Ēǰmiacin where he was ordained as deacon in 1664. He met Clemente Galano CR, a Theatine father on mission in Armenia at the time, the same year. Galano taught Latin and the dogmatic of the Roman Catholic Church in the Seminary of Ēǰmiacin.60 Hunanean

56 APF Acta SC, Vol. 47. Fol. 225.; APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 49−50., Fol. 176−177., Fol. 178. 57 APF LDSC SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 10−11.; APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 6−7. 58 APF Acta SC, Vol. 53. Fol. 3−4., Fol. 204−205., Fol. 245−249.; APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 42., Fol. 47−48., Fol. 101.; APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 1−2. 59 Petrowicz, 1950. 295.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 182.; Petrowicz, 1988. 1. 60 APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 122; Petrowicz, 1950. 165.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 183.

97

98

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

was soon assigned by his superiors to Galano to accompany him to Lviv and assist him in his talk with Archbishop Torosowicz.61 Galano played a key role in the church-union of the Armenians in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. The Theatine frater who knew Armenian language and mentality very well was sent by the Apostolic Holy See to Lviv to counterbalance the strong influence Torosowicz had and to establish a seminary for the local Uniate Armenians, which he successfully founded as Armenian College. He was its first Rector until his death in 1666.62 Thanks to the recommendation Galano gave him, Hunanean travelled to Rome to continue his studies at the where he converted to Roman Catholic faith in 1670. Two years later he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest.63 One of the important turning points in Hunanean’s life was when the Apostolic Holy See ordered Torosowicz to go to Rome in 1668 for an investigation due to his scandals and charges of corruption. The Propaganda Fide did not formally condemn the archbishop but did not trust him. In 1675, the Apostolic Holy See assigned Hunanean as co-adjutor to the enfant terrible archbishop and ordained Hunanean as a Titular Bishop of Epiphania in Syria. The Apostolic Holy See sent him to Lviv with the clear intention to keep Torosowicz under control and in check. It was no secret that the faithful Catholic Hunanean was considered a potential successor to the unreliable archbishop. Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz soon realised it and saw a rival in the young high priest and did all he could to make life impossible for him in Lviv. This he could easily do since his close allies were heading all church institutions in the town. Due to their conflict, Hunanean left for Armenia to do missionary work.64 Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka, who later became coadjutor to the archbishop and Titular Bishop of Himeria and who was to be under the patronage of Oxendio Virziresco, reported in his chronicle that Hunanean converted people with success in both Anatolia and Cilicia. With some exaggeration he added that Hunanean managed to win over several Armenian high priests to the Roman Catholic faith.65 In 1679, Hunanean was in the Catholicos’ entourage. He received a safe-conduct pass from Armenian Catholicos James IV (1655–1680) (Yakob Ĵułayec’i) to be able to do some work in Armenia. This may have seemed strange or even absurd on the part of the Armenian head of church since Armenian catholicoi in general mistrusted the “Frank” missionaries of the Apostolic Holy See in territories under their jurisdiction. In the lower clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, it was

61 62 63 64 65

APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 166–167.; Petrowicz, 1950. 172–173. APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 132. Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 183–184.; Petrowicz, 1988. 2. APF SOCG, Vol. 225. Fol. 270.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 19–23.; Petrowicz, 1950. 295. APF Acta SC, Vol. 55. Fol. 234−235.; APF SOCG, Vol. 493. Fol. 370., Fol. 371., Fol. 373.; APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 6–7., Fol. 47–48., Fol. 101.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 185.

The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685)

considered a weakness to some extent on the part of the catholicoi that “despicable and godless” Latin heretics were allowed to do missionary work. It was a serious blow for the Armenian Apostolic Church that in Naxiǰewan Province a missionary archbishopric functioned.66 Catholicos Jacob IV died in 1680 and his successor, Eliazar I (1682–1691) (Ełiazar Ayntapc’i) took sterner steps against the missionaries: he, in fact, imprisoned and tortured several Roman Catholic missionaries and threatened the converted Armenians with impalement.67 Hunanean himself was among the missionaries imprisoned and was released after five years’ incarceration only thanks to the intervention of Polish King John III Sobieski (1674–1696) and Persian Shah Safi II (1667–1694). After his liberation but still in Armenia he received instructions from the Apostolic Holy See to take over the direction of the Armenian Uniate diocese in Lviv as appointed archbishop.68 Hunanean arrived in Lviv on October 1st , 1686 and sent a report to the Apostolic Holy See right away.69 The Propaganda Fide remained firm on his appointment although at the beginning he could not be reached. Therefore, they decided to appoint a coadjutor to the Archbishop who would fill the office as an interim executive bishop. On the other hand, at the beginning of 1682 the Armenian community decided to act on their part: They intended to appoint their own candidate for Torosowicz’s position based on the ius eligendi according to them by the Polish kings.70 From the various groups of the local Armenian community who were fighting among one another since they all wanted to see their own candidate at the head of the church, Johannes (Jan, Yovhannēs) Bernatowicz, a former follower of Torosowicz emerged as the winner of these fights. He, surprisingly, did not turn to the Apostolic Holy See for his appointment but to Catholicos Isaac I (1674–1686) (Sahak K’ilisc’i) of Cilicia who ordained him as the Bishop of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Kamianets-Podilskyi.71 The situation was therefore rather chaotic because an Armenian priest of Catholic faith received his appointment from one of the heads of the Armenian Apostolic Church. This seemed suspicious to the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw because there they considered Bernatowicz a priest of the Apostolic Holy See but also a high priest who returned to the “heretic” Armenian faith. Therefore,

66 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 171. 67 Ōrmanean, 1993. 257. 68 APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 123–124., Fol. 177–179., Fol. 217–218.; APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 102.; APF LDSC, Vol. 74. Fol. 75., Fol. 174–175.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 378., Fol. 434., Fol. 464., Fol. 465.; APF CU, Vol. 2. Fol. 1., Fol. 90., Fol. 91., Fol. 92.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 185. 69 APF, LDSC, Vol. 75. Fol. 54–55., Fol. 129.; APF SC FA, Vol. 3. Fol. 462. 70 Ališan, 1896a. 11.; Petrowicz, 1971. 11–26. 71 APF SOCG, Vol. 483. Fol. 363.; APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 221–222., Fol. 223.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 223–224., Fol. 375.; Petrowicz, 1988. 3–4.

99

100

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

they thought the fragile church-union of the Armenians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were at risk. Bishop Bernatowicz considered himself the head of all the Armenians in Poland and threatened with excommunication all Armenians who did not recognise his “legal and God-given” office as a high priest.72 Therefore, Opizio Pallavicini (1635–1700), Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Titular Archbishop of Ephesus, and Francesco Giambattistà Bonesana CR (1649–1709), Rector of the Armenian College, founded by Clemente Galano, decided to act. They were afraid that history would repeat itself in Lviv and they would end up having a high priest like Torosowicz.73 Bernatowicz claimed to be at times Uniate Catholic and at other times of the Armenian Apostolic faith. This attitude arrose suspicions of heresy in the Roman Catholic Church. Pallavicini and Father Bonesana, therefore, reported to the Apostolic Holy See Bernatowicz’s dubious attitude. The Apostolic Holy See immediately deposed him from his office while the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw excommunicated him and forbade the Armenian community to recognise him as the head of their church.74 The Nuncio Pallavicini and the Rector Bonesana in discussion with the Apostolic Holy See were looking for a new candidate while keeping the position of the archbishop for Hunanean. However, they were still unable to reach Hunanean due to the chaotic political situation in Armenia. Therefore, they decided to find an interim bishop who would head the archbishop’s office until Hunanean was available.75 The choice fell to Deodatus Nersesowicz (1644–1709), a former seminarist of Armenian and Urbanian College who the Apostolic Holy See appointed as the Titular Bishop of Traianopolis in Rhodope on November 29th , 1683. Nersesowicz’s appointment seemed ideal for the Roman Catholic Church since he was faithful to Catholicism and was convinced that the Armenian Apostolic Church should have a church-union with Rome.76 Nersesowicz was ordained by Apostolic Nuncio Opizio Pallavicini in the Cathedral of the Armenian Archbishopric of Lviv on January 18th , 1684.77 The main goal of the new high priest was the consolidation of church discipline and the eradication of the old Armenian liturgies he called heretic. The church-unions signed by

72 APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 221−223.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 363., Fol. 365., Fol. 374.; Petrowicz, 1988. 5. 73 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 375., Fol. 376., Fol. 378–379. 74 APF SOCG, Vol. 488. Fol. 274.; Petrowicz, 1988. 6. 75 APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 102. 76 APF Acta SC, Vol. 53. Fol. 248.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 54. Fol. 17., Fol. 98., Fol. 165−166.; APF LDSC, Vol. 71. Fol. 69.; APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 69., Fol. 199–200., Fol. 259., Fol. 261.; APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 69., 98–99.; APF LDSC, Vol. 75. Fol. 54–55., Fol. 129.; APF FV, Vol. 42. Fol. 49.; HC, 1952. 243. 384.; Petrowicz, 1988. 7. 77 APF Acta SC, Vol. 54. Fol. 165−166.

The Archbishopric in Lviv and the Armenians in Transylvania (1681−1685)

Torosowicz did not extend to liturgic practice or issues of theology, therefore most of the ancient Armenian rites were still unchanged. Many Uniate Armenian priests held liturgy following old rites.78 Nersesowicz, on the other hand, adhered to Latinisation: he demanded to adjust the liturgy to the Latin rites. The new archbishop made efforts to reduce in the church the influence of the lay representatives of the local community. With the help of the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and the Polish authorities he revoked the rights of the local lay Armenian community because they could have a strong impact on the direction of the church. The new archbishop and the Apostolic Nuncio did all they could to introduce the use of the Gregorian calendar in the Armenian Uniate Church instead of the old traditional Armenian calendar that the Roman Catholic Church considered heretic.79 The new bishop when taking these steps always acted in accordance with the Apostolic Holy See and the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw since he did not want to be seen as someone who acted on his own. The fast and radical steps, however, brought a series of conflicts in the Armenian community because in spite of their Uniate faith a lot of them insisted on keeping the old traditional liturgic Armenian rites and calendar out of habit.80 In 1685, Bishop Nersesowicz was seriously criticised by Rector Bonesana. Furthermore, Bonesana, who spent long years as a missionary in Armenia, thought the steps of the new bishop too hasty, and radical. Rector Bonesana, who knew Armenian language and the relations within the Armenian Apostolic Church, would have preferred changes implemented at a slower pace, little by little, and expressed this opinion also in a letter written to the Propaganda Fide. Based on his experiences in Armenia, Rector Bonesana thought it justified to give concessions to the Uniate Armenians living in Poland and to revert to Latin rites one step at a time. As for the calendar and Eucharist, Rector Bonesana was of the official view of the Roman Catholic Church. He approved of the Uniate Armenians holding their liturgy in Armenian while Nersesowicz was pushing for Latin. In the end, the Apostolic Holy See accepted Bonesana’s “rational” arguments. The Rector warned Nersesowicz of hasty reforms because forcing a radical change may create resistance and could hinder the fulfilment of the church-union.81 When Hunanean arrived in Lviv Nersesowicz voiced his resentment and dislike. He was hoping that Hunanean would be lost in Armenia and he would be elevated

78 79 80 81

APF LDSC, Vol. 75. Fol. 54−55., Fol. 111., Fol. 129. APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 138−140. APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 69. APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 139.; Petrowicz, 1988. 8−11.

101

102

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

as Uniate Armenian Archbishop in Lviv.82 This hope was shattered with Hunanean’s arrival. Bishop Nersesowicz who was hurt in his vanity was soon called back to Rome where, as an officer specialised in Armenian issues, was employed by the Propaganda Fide until 1699. Then he was sent back to Lviv to assist the archbishop. Here he served the Armenian Uniate archdiocese until his death on May 9th , 1709.83 In a letter written to the Propaganda Fide dated October 1st , 1686, Hunanean outlined in what state he took the archbishopric over.84 He dedicated a special section to the problem regarding liturgy and the calendar.85 In the last paragraph of the letter he mentioned an Armenian Uniate priest, Oxendio Virziresco, a former seminarist of Urbanian College who did missionary work in Szeklerland in Transylvania among his “heretic” compatriots.86 The archbishop may have received this information directly from Nersesowicz who was forced to resign. Bishop Nersesowicz sent a detailed report in Italian dated September 8th , 1684 from Cracow (Kraków, Poland) to Edoardo Cybo, the secretary of the Propaganda Fide. Here he informed Cybo that the Armenians in Moldavia and in Poland did not use the Gregory calendar. In his account he wrote a paragraph about a sizable Armenian community of the (Eastern) Apostolic faith who settled down on the other side of the Carpathians in Szeklerland. He emphasised the need for missionary work among them.87 This is how the Armenians in Transylvania were discovered in Lviv and Rome.

Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689 Archbishop Hunanean in his letter, dated October 1st , 1686 written in Latin and addressed to the Propaganda Fide, outlined the situation in which the diocese was when he took it over. He addressed the problems regarding liturgy and the calendar

82 APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 254−256.; APF SOCG, Vol. 495B. Fol. 232–234.; APF SOCG, Vol. 496. Fol. 503., Fol. 505. 83 APF Acta SC, Vol. 68. Fol. 287–291.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 194–195.; Ališan, 1896a. 130.; Petrowicz, 1988. 50–58. 84 APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 207., Fol. 254–257. 85 APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 40., Fol. 135–136.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462.; HC, 1952. 243. p.; Nagy 2006b, 1007–1019. p. 86 APF Acta SC, Vol. 54. Fol. 117–119.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 55. Fol. 234–235.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 207.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 114., Fol. 118–120., Fol. 125–127.; APF SOCG, Vol. 495B. Fol. 231r., Fol. 236.; APF SOCG, Vol. 496. Fol. 92., Fol. 193., Fol. 502.; APF SOCG, Vol. 497. Fol. 278., fol. 279., Fol. 280., Fol. 281.; APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 33–34.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462., Fol. 464., Fol. 465.; APF SC, FMPR. Vol. 2. Fol. 244., Fol. 260–261., Fol. 264–267., Fol. 315., Fol. 335. 87 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 380–381.

Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689

as well as the introduction of the reforms for Latinisation.88 In October 1686 the Archbishop was not in an enviable position. The reticence and lack of trust felt within the Armenian community in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth towards him was largely due to the fact that he, unlike Bishop Nersesowicz, was born an Armenian in Armenia and not in Poland. After thanking the Propaganda Fide for intervening for his release from prison in Armenia, the archbishop requested the cardinals to accord him pallium bestowed to metropolitans.89 In his letter he also mentioned that when arriving in Lviv, he found the Armenian Church in a much better state than under Archbishop Torosowicz. However, circumstances were not always satisfactory. Similar to Bishop Nersesowicz, Archbishop Hunanean saw the reason of the problems in keeping the old Eastern Armenian ecclesiastical traditions and calendar and recommended reforms and promoting Latin rites. In fact, what Hunanean wanted to achieve was to observe and celebrate the religious holidays according to the Gregorian calendar and not the old Armenian one.90 At the session of the Propaganda Fide held on November 29th , 1686 Hunanean’s request for the pallium was approved and he received it with almost a year’s delay on November 10th , 1687.91 However, no decision was made at the session regarding the calendar and the cardinals recommended further investigation of the issue.92 Since the cardinals took a long time to make decisions therefore the archbishop made up his mind to act on his own. With his collaborators he worked in Lviv to further promote Latinisation initiated by Bishop Nersesowicz. These activities were far from gentle: his rude and forced initiatives to transform the liturgic practice of the Armenian Uniate Church brought down the wrath of the Armenian communities.93 Cardinal Angelo Paluzzo degli Albertoni Altieri (1623–1698), Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, received a letter in this regard from the Theatine Bonesana,94 in which the Rector of the Armenian College described in detail that Hunanean meant to literally and incorrectly transplant the Latin theological terms into Armenian which he even announced during liturgy at the Armenian Cathedral of the Assumption of Saint Mary of the diocese several times.95 The firm opposition

88 APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 254–257.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462.; HC, 1952. 243.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 186. 89 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 462r., Fol. 498. 90 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462.; Petrowicz, 1988. 12–13.; Nagy, 2006. 1007–1019. 91 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 114. 92 APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 207. 93 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 491. 94 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 81. 95 Ibid. Fol. 125−127.

103

104

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

of the Theatines teaching at the Armenian College in Lviv to this was understandable since they were afraid that the forced Latinisation might lead to subsequent bouts of apostasy among the Armenians. Rector Bonesana remarked in his report sent to the Propaganda Fide that Archbishop Hunanean started to translate the Roman Catholic prayer book from Latin into Armenian and introduced its use at the liturgy which caused great havoc in the community. Chaos and “schizophrenia” were prevalent among the Armenians: while Archbishop Hunanean and his immediate circle held the mass according to Latin rites simple Armenian priests followed the Armenian rites.96 Cardinal Altieri therefore instructed Nuncio Pallavicini to act fast and keep the obstinate archbishop from implementing any more reforms without the blessing of the Propaganda Fide in the Uniate Armenian Church. The Prefect of the Propaganda Fide emphasised that the reforms were necessary and imperative but, in this regard, it was vital to follow the instructions of Clemente Galano, the late Rector of the Armenian College in Lviv and to proceed with care considering Armenian traditions as well.97 As a result, Apostolic Nuncio Pallavicini informed Archbishop Hunanean of the firm request expressed by the Propaganda Fide to stop the implementation of the reforms that were not approved by the Apostolic Holy See. Following this, the Nuncio arrived in Lviv to launch an internal investigation. At the recommendation of the Theatines, he tried to establish the reform policy outlined by Father Galano within the Armenian Uniate Church. In fact, based on his missionary experiences of long years in Armenia, in 1664, Father Galano wrote a road map to adjust Armenian traditions to Latin rites. In his investigation, Nuncio Pallavicini acknowledged that undoubtedly many changes were necessary in the liturgy since there had been serious disfunctions in ecclesiastic practice that resulted in a chaotic state of affairs in the previous decades. Furthermore, the Nuncio emphasised that the Propaganda Fide had to publish a modern Uniate Armenian prayer book.98 In the meantime, Rector Bonesana kept voicing his concerns and reservations regarding uniformisation suggesting that the Armenian clergy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have more say in this matter because they would be the key to the success of the Armenians’ church-union in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Therefore, he recommended first Archbishop Hunanean and then Nuncio Pallavicini to call for a council of the archdiocese to engage the entire Armenian clergy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where, besides liturgic “reforms”, structural changes in the archdiocese should also be on the agenda. After some hesitation, Nuncio Pallavicini seconded this idea and

96 APF SOCG, Vol. 499. Fol. 74. 97 APF SOCG, Vol. 499. Fol. 76.; APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 40., Fol. 136., Fol. 155. 98 APF Acta SC, Vol. 58. Fol. 95.; Petrowicz, 1988. 15.

Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689

following initial talks sent a report to the Apostolic Holy See, which was approved almost right away.99 Archbishop Hunanean, on the other hand, received the decision of the Apostolic Holy See with mixed feelings. The archbishop was hurt in his pride since with this verdict he felt that a simple Theatine father and Rector Bonesana lessened his authority as archbishop. In spite of this, Archbishop Hunanean sent a letter to the Propaganda Fide on July 16th , 1688 in which he recommended to call the synod for the beginning of the following year in Lviv, based on what he learnt through his visits to parishes in his diocese and discussions with local clergy.100 In the meantime, changes occurred at the head of the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw. Giacomo Cantelmi, Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia succeeded Opizio Pallavicini. The new Nuncio was faced with serious difficulties. The Armenian Uniate clergy and the Theatines sent him a complaint regarding Hunanean’s too radical Latinisation since the archbishop, when visiting the Armenian Uniate parishes, set about implementing his unapproved reforms that the Propaganda Fide asked him to stop. Nuncio Cantelmi sent an account of Archbishop Hunanean’s overzealous activities in his correspondence written to Secretary Edoardo Cybo on April 6th , 1689. The Apostolic Nuncio objected most of all to the fact that the archbishop kept implementing the reforms for Latinisation in liturgy (especially in the use of language and concerning Lent and other important holidays) on his own account, despite the warnings of the Propaganda Fide and his predecessor, Nuncio Pallavicini. Soon after arriving in Warsaw, Rector Bonesana and the Theatine fathers won Apostolic Nuncio Cantelmi over and he became a supporter of their opinion. This was reflected in the report the Nuncio sent. He underlined that Archbishop Hunanean did not take into account the resistance of the clergy and with his obstinacy caused dissatisfaction in the community.101 Apostolic Nuncio Cantelmi raised the possibility that Archbishop Hunanean might not be the person most suitable to head the Uniate archdiocese in Lviv since he repeatedly abused his power as an archbishop and the trust and good will the Apostolic Holy See had expressed towards him.102 The lay leaders of the Armenian community also participated in creating a bad picture of him as they never liked the bishop’s activities and did not tolerate well that the archbishop, following Bishop Nersesowicz’s church-policy, reduced their privileges and revoked several-centuries-old traditions, namely the one that granted secular representatives of the community a say in church matters.

99 100 101 102

APF Acta SC, Vol. 58. Fol. 95.; APF LDSC, Vol. 77. Fol. 27. APF SOCG, Vol. 503. Fol. 15. APF Acta SC, Vol. 59. Fol. 167. APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 104.

105

106

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

This was later seconded by Rector Bonesana who did not like Bishop Nersesowicz or Archbishop Hunanean. Rector Bonesana wrote in a correspondence sent to the Propaganda Fide that although Archbishop Hunanean’s special activities may be of profit to Roman Catholics he did not approve the archbishop’s special methods. Archbishop Hunanean in his letter dated February 25, 1689, written to CardinalPrefect Altieri complained that ill will against him had been growing since the day he had taken over the archbishopric. The secular leaders of the Armenian community did all they could to undermine his authority and they often pitted local Armenians against him. Hunanean was afraid that one day they would not recognise him as archbishop within the community.103 These circumstances made it imperative to call the Uniate Armenian ecclesiastical council in Lviv as soon as possible.104 Urged by the Apostolic Holy See and after long discussions Archbishop Hunanean called the synod of the Armenian Uniate Church in Poland (Synodus provincialis Archiodioecesis Armenae)105 in Lviv on October 20, 1689. Surprisingly, the council was not held in the Armenian Cathedral of the Assumption of Mary of the diocese but in the Holy Cross Church. The synod was headed by Giacomo Cantelmi, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw which indicated that the Apostolic Holy See accorded the council great importance. The participants were Uniate Armenian priests, the Theatine fathers, among them Bonesana and Sebastiano Maria Accorsi, his deputy, as well as representatives of the Uniate Armenian communities in Crimea and Moldavia. It is unclear why Bishop Nersesowicz and the representatives of the Armenians in Transylvania did not participate at the event. Especially the absence of Bishop Nersesowicz is hard to understand. The absence of the Armenians in Transylvania is understandable to some extent since Oxendio Virziresco who oversaw the completion of their church-union was busy with his own mission then.106 Relatively little is known of the synod. One reason for this is that the sources uncovered so far talk about it in a very succinct manner. Talks, debates and discussions yielded little result. Our studies focused primarily upon the correspondence between Nuncio Cantelmi and the Apostolic Holy See. Nuncio Cantelmi reported Cardinal Altieri, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, on November 18th , 1689 that Rector Bonesana generated serious debates and confronted him several times. Nuncio Cantelmi complained that Bonesana raised reservations against all plans or decrees.107

103 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 5. 104 APF LDSC, Vol. 77. Fol. 10., Fol. 27., Fol. 43., Fol. 82., Fol. 122–123.; APF LDSC, Vol. 78. Fol. 18–19., Fol. 27., Fol. 30–31., 59–60.; AAV, ANV. Vol. 107. Fol. 151–152., Fol. 154–155. 105 Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 186. 106 APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 1. 107 APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 629.; Petrowicz, 1988. 18.

Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689

This statement may seem exaggerated to some extent, but Bonesana and the Theatine missionaries had a general knowledge of the Armenian ecclesiastical traditions. As was mentioned above, Bonesana was more inclined towards less radical changes and did not approve Latinisation forced by Rome. About this controversy Rector Bonesana wrote to Secretary Edoardo Cybo in his letter dated February 8, 1690 that despite the respect he felt towards Nuncio Cantelmi he had a hard time accepting the points in the decree put forward by the Nuncio because these meant to force Western rites radically onto the Armenians. This could, however, provide a good excuse to Armenians to return to their “heretic” traditions. Rector Bonesana drew also attention to the fact that the decrees, modified by his suggestion and accepted in the end at the synod, would be approved by the representatives of the Armenian Uniate Church as well.108 Little had been known of how the council took place until at the end of the 20th century the finalised document of the council in manuscript form was uncovered at the historical archives of the Propaganda Fide. For a long time, scholars believed this never existed or if it did it got lost. The document can be divided into four, easily distinguishable parts: the first one centred on dogmatic issues, the second one on sacraments, the third on liturgy while the fourth one on the re-structuring of the archdiocese. Part one of the documents says that the Armenian clergy present took a confession of faith where they proclaimed that the Armenian Uniate Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church. At first sight it seems an easy formula, but one should not forget about the fact that during the time Archbishop Torosowicz held his office confessions of faith were sworn at least three times when the church-union with the Catholic Church was declared. Nevertheless, the church-union created a serious conflict among Armenians. Archbishop Hunanean and his circle, however, declared at the synod that after the church-union had been proclaimed they no longer accepted the jurisdiction of the Armenian Catholicos in Ēǰmiacin and considered illegal any interventions in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the part of the Armenian Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin. They did not obey him who, as a “heretic and schismatic high priest”, had no right to get involved in the internal affairs of the Armenian Uniate Church. At the liturgy they broke with the Armenian Eastern tradition to remember the Armenian catholicos.109 The clergy present declared also that they stopped all contacts with Eastern schismatic churches (an allusion to the Armenian Apostolic Church) and they did not accept

108 APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 638. 109 Petrowicz, 1988. 18–19.

107

108

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

any denominational unity with them except the cases when they were attempting to re-convert Schismatic Christians (Armenians) to the true Roman Catholic faith.110 This clause was very important because for the first time Hunanean and the Armenian clergy present stated that the church-union of the Armenians in Poland with the Roman Catholic Church was irrevocable once and for all. The church-unions Torosowicz had signed made no allusion to the fact that they would no longer accept the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Armenian Catholicos and had disregarded this issue entirely. Therefore, it was at the synod of Lviv in 1689 that the Armenian Uniate Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth proclaimed the church-union officially and irrevocably. Part two of the document regarding the synod was about the Sacrament of Baptism. The participants of the synod decided to adjust the Armenian baptism rite to the Latin one yet added that baptism could be held in Armenian as well. This decision probably reflects the influence Rector Bonesana had.111 They also declared that adult Armenians who converted to the Roman Catholic faith did not have to be baptised a second time. The same applied to converted Armenian priests. For new born babies, on the other hand, Latin rites were supposed to be performed at baptism. They went as far as rejecting the Sacrament of Chrismation (drošm), anointing the forehead of the infants with oil immediately following Baptism, a tradition that is still alive in Armenian Eastern Church.112 At the council time was set aside to consider how Eucharist should be administered. It is well-known that during medieval times both Rome and Byzantium criticised the Armenian Apostolic Church several times for their theological beliefs and rites regarding the Eucharist. At the council, however, no mention was made of the theological basis of administering the Eucharist. Those present decided that the Armenian Uniate Church should adopt the Latin tradition since they thought the Armenian Apostolic Church recognised the sacrament of Communion under both kinds. They did not mix water into the wine that symbolised Jesus Christ’s blood and they believed in using unleavened bread. The Theatine missionaries, however, suggested giving temporarily some concessions to the Uniate Armenians. They stressed this because many of the Uniate Armenian priest wanted to follow old Armenian traditions and not the Catholic ones.113 The Theatine fathers were afraid that if the Eucharist with host is forced on the Armenians too fast that could lead to the rejection of the church-union. After long and fierce debates, they managed to persuade Nuncio Cantelmi and Archbishop Hunanean to temporarily allow the Armenians to administer the Eucharist on big ecclesiastical holidays in the 110 111 112 113

APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 4.; Petrowicz, 1988. 19. Petrowicz, 1950. 189. 212.; Petrowicz, 1988. 19. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 5., Fol. 7. Galanus, 1690. 219.

Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and the Armenian Council of Lviv in 1689

old Armenian traditional way on condition the Uniate Armenians did that only in uniate Armenian churches with the special approval of the Apostolic Holy See through the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw.114 Regarding the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, the council decided that the Armenian Uniate Archbishop and the Coadjutor Bishop should give out guidance. The Theatines claimed that Armenians were not aware of the Roman Catholic traditions and did not know the decrees regarding these issues of the Council of Trent. Therefore, they recommended that the Rector of the Armenian College would have a say in them. Cantelmi, however, rejected this proposal of the Theatines and assigned these affairs to the authority of the archbishop. The issue of marriage was also a question in connection with sacraments. Here once again Rector Bonesana’s influence can be detected. At first, Archbishop Hunanean wanted to have absolute celibacy. In the end, however, they decided that members of the lay clergy of the Armenian Uniate Church could get married before being ordained. On the other hand, they decided that the Armenian priests who had been married before the church-union could not be forced to celibacy.115 At the council the issue of the Extreme Unction was also discussed. They decided that the Armenians were mistaken when they did not recognise the concept of the Extreme Unction for which the Roman Catholic Church had always fiercely criticised the Armenian Church. Now it was decided that the Extreme Unction should be administered to all converted Uniate Armenians.116 The issue of adopting the Gregorian calendar and rites around Lent had a special session. The council obliged the Uniate Armenians to adjust the liturgic year to the Gregorian calendar. Furthermore, Armenians were supposed to abandon their own chronology and calendar because they were not in harmony with those of the Roman Catholic Church. In connection with the Holy Mass, the council considered the traditions of the Council of Trent as the orientation point. They decided to conduct the mass in Latin. The Uniate Armenian priests, however, managed to persuade Nuncio Cantelmi to allow them to conduct the mass also in Classical Armenian (grabar) because most of the Uniate priests were new converts and their Latin was not good enough. Another important thing was that the Armenian seminarists of the Armenian College were allowed to use both Latin and Armenian.117 Part four of the council document was dedicated entirely to the practical issues of the archbishopric, or more precisely the Armenian archdiocese in the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. It dealt with the functioning of Armenian parishes, 114 115 116 117

APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 10–15.; Petrowicz, 1988. 20. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 15–18.; Petrowicz, 1988. 20. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 19.; Petrowicz, 1950. 200. 220. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 27–30.; Petrowicz, 1988. 22.

109

110

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

their maintenance costs, the duties of the Uniate clergy, the spiritual retreats of the Armenian clergy,118 funeral ceremonies,119 the last will of the priests,120 the jurisdiction of the archbishop in case of litigations of the Armenian clergy,121 the foundation of monastic orders for men and women according to the Rule of Saint Benedict. The council determined how Armenian parishes should function, what maintenance costs they should have, what duties Armenian Uniate priests had, the spiritual exercise they should observe, the funeral services they should conduct, the last will they should leave, the right the archbishop had to decide in litigation cases of Armenian priests, the establishment and legal status of Uniate Armenian monasteries, both male and female, according to the Rule of Saint Benedict.122 Apart from these points, decrees were made to preserve the conditions of Armenian church-buildings and the amount of their maintenance costs.123 It was also decided that the archbishop had to visit his archdiocese and call a council for the archdiocese once every two years.124 The synod decided about the episcopal offices and the scopes of the four coadjutors. The episcopal office of the coadjutors was established at the middle of the 1670’s urged by the Propaganda Fide to keep Archbishop Torosowicz under check. On Archbishop Hunanean’s recommendation, the four episcopal sees were transferred from the four towns (Kamianiets–Podilskyi, Belz, Yazlovets, and Ivano-Frankivsk/ Stanyslaviv, Ukraine) to Lviv. This facilitated the administrative work that needed to be done beside missionary work as well as executing the archbishop’s job in his absence.125 The document containing the decrees of the synod was sent to the Apostolic Holy See and it arrived on January 23rd , 1690. Secretary Edoardo Cybo forwarded the council’s decrees to the special committee of the Propaganda Fide for supervision and approval of the document in letters dated March 25th , 1690 and April 11th the same year.126 The special committee at their session summarised their decisions regarding the council. First of all, they reviewed the modifications the council made concerning liturgy and highlighted the structural problems the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw had signalled, for example the one about secular authority

118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 32–36.; Petrowicz, 1988. 23. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 36–37. Ibid. Fol. 36. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 40.; Petrowicz, 1988. 24. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 41–43. Ibid. Fol. 38–39. APF SC, FA. Misc. Fol. 43–45, Fol. 46–47.; Petrowicz, 1988. 24. APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 48–49. APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 2–3., Fol. 94., Fol. 110.; Petrowicz, 1988. 27.

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686)

intervening in the matters of the archdiocese. The special committee decided that the Latin rite bishops should not stop the Armenian archbishop exercising his ecclesiastical jurisdiction within his archdiocese.127 Cardinals participating at the special committee meeting called Bishop Nersesowicz who was on a missionary visit in Moldavia to Rome so that he could review and give his opinion about the decrees of the synod.128 At the end of May 1690, Bishop Nersesowicz arrived in Rome and on June 3rd , 1690 he asked the cardinals in a letter to approve the decrees of the council. He laid a special emphasis on asking the Apostolic Holy See not to allow the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops to interfere in the matters of the Armenian Uniate Church. Last of all, he requested the Apostolic Holy See to assign the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw the right to supervise the Armenian Uniate Church. The special committee of the Propaganda Fide in the end approved the decrees of the council in Lviv.129

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686) The Propaganda Fide was alerted by the above-mentioned report written by Bishop Nersesowicz in 1683 that Armenian refugees arrived in Szeklerland in two waves from Podolia and Moldavia between 1668 and 1672 due to religious pogroms and Ottoman occupation.130 It was also important that the head and ethnarch of the Armenians who settled down in the multi-confessional Transylvania was Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i, Armenian Apostolic Bishop in Moldavia.131 One of the old objectives of the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv was to unite the Armenians of Moldavia with the Roman Catholic Church. For this they received great help from the Apostolic Holy See as well as the Polish Roman Catholic Church. The missionary initiative was also supported by the Armenian College in Lviv. Even before this there had been signs that suggested the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania could be accomplished. Peter Parčević (1612–1674) (Pietro Parchevich), Apostolic Vicar in Moldavia remarked in a letter dated July 12th , 1670, written to the Propaganda Fide that there were Armenian and Romanian monks in the monastery in Transylvanian province of Ciuc who had converted to the Roman Catholic faith. Parčević suggested that with their help the Armenian

127 128 129 130 131

APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 361–367., Fol. 613–616. Ibid. Fol. 615. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 617–618., Fol. 634–635., Fol. 636., Fol. 638–640.; Farrugia, 2000. 70. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 378–381.; Lukácsy, 1859. 16. BMK, MS. No. 511. Fol. 1., Fol. 199.; Ališan, 1896a. 125–126.

111

112

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

refugees from Moldavia could be converted.132 There were Armenians who had settled down in Transylvania earlier and not because of the persecutions. This is supported by the letter written by Giovanni Battistà Bercuce (1635–1697) in 1678 to Carlo Urbano Cerri (1610−1690), Secretary of the Propaganda Fide in which he mentioned János Medvés-Merig OFM Conv. (Yovhannēs Merikean), a Conventual Franciscan father from Şumuleu who converted to the Roman Catholic faith. He went to Transylvania from Moldavia and although he called himself Hungarian, his parents had been followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Earlier Father Medvés-Merig caused several scandals in Moldavia as a priest of the Armenian Apostolic Church, stole and sold the treasures of the Armenian church in the city of Roman (Románvásár, Romania) and even killed the tax collector of the Prince of Moldavia who was investigating this affair and therefore he had to flee Moldavia.133 Francesco Martelli (1633–1708), Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Titular Bishop of Corinth, in 1682 and Father Francesco Bonesana, Rector of the Armenian College, in 1683 sent reports to the Apostolic Holy See where they emphasised the importance of converting the Armenians in Transylvania to the Roman Catholic faith. However, until receiving Bishop Nersesowicz’s detailed report, the Apostolic Holy See did not make a decision regarding this issue.134 The Armenians in Transylvania had not been concerned with the issue of churchunion until Oxendio Virziresco arrived in 1685.135 Although the Franciscans of Şumuleu and Bertalan Szebelébi (1631–1707), Roman Catholic Episcopal Vicar of Transylvania, made some weak attempts to convert the Armenians, but these efforts

132 APF Acta SC, Vol. 46. Fol. 166–168.; APF SOCG, Vol. 435. Fol. 310., Fol. 314., Fol. 333.; APF SOCG, Vol. 436. Fol. 405.; APF SOCG, Vol. 449. Fol. 1.; APF SOCG, Vol. 461. Fol. 37.; APF SOCG, Vol. 475. Fol. 359., Fol. 370.; APF LDSC, Vol. 66. Fol. 1., Fol. 3., Fol. 41.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 1. Fol. 152., Fol. 155–156., Fol. 168–169., Fol. 221–223., Fol. 225., Fol. 265–267., Fol. 287.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 11–12., Fol. 29–30., Fol. 116–119.; Benda, 2003. 605–607. 609–612. 614. 616. 621–623. 633. 638. 654. 659. 661–663. 671–673. 675–680. 696. 699. 797.; Ferro, 2005. 97–98.; Galla, 2005. 168. 176. 208. 246–251. 256. 276. 133 APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 41–46.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 249.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagiantion.); ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137., Fol. 173.; Lukácsy, 1859. 67. 133.; Vanyó, 1933. 113.; Veszely, 1860. 48–49. 54–55. 279–280. 355. 356–365.; Gopcsa, 1895. 378.; Jakab, 1944. 17.; Sávai, 1993. 106–113.; Fazekas, 2002. 93–94. p.; Benda, 2003. 683–684.; Tóth, 2005. 2781. 2786. 2792. 2800. 2895.; Galla, 2005. 216. 260. 262–264. 269. 272. 279. 287. 308. 309. 310. 315. 325. 329.; Molnár, 2007. 26.; Molnár, 2009. 227. 134 APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 1−2.; APF SC FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 126–127., Fol. 134r.–135/v. 135 APF SC, FM. Vol. 1. Fol. 155–156., Fol. 265–267.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 41–46.; APF FVC, Vol. 21. Fol. 3–22.; Benda, 2003. 615. 685–686.; Ferro, 2005. 87–88. 97–98.

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686)

were met with fierce resistance on the part of Bishop Minas and the Armenian clergy and failed.136 The Apostolic Holy See did not concern themselves with the Armenians during the two decades following their inflow between 1668 and 1672. Missionary work among them was initiatied in fact by the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv in 1683. They supported their claim by stating that the Armenians who had fled to Transylvania had originally been under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Archdiocese in Lviv and they intended to keep this right after the church-union.137 The Apostolic Holy See soon found the right person for the missionary work in Transylvania in Oxendio Virziresco, Armenian Uniate priest, of Moldavian birth but of Armenian origin. His family provided priests for the Armenian Apostolic Church for several generations. An argument to strengthen his candidacy was that allegedly his family had converted to Roman Catholic faith already in Moldavia which, however, was not true.138 In any case, Oxendio’s relatives arrived in Transylvania as refugees led by Bishop Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i in 1668.139 The objective was clear: to accomplish the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania.140 Oxendio Virziresco was born on June 30th , 1654 in the town of Botoşani, Moldavia. He was converted to Roman Catholic faith in 1676 by missionaries active in Moldavia and started his studies in theology at the Armenian College in Lviv.141 He was sent to Rome by Francesco Martelli, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw where he continued his studies in theology at Urbanian College.142 The Latin rite and Latinisation became an important issue due to Oxendio’s studies. The information and the knowledge the young Armenian Uniate priest received at the Urbanian College, the seminary of the Propaganda Fide, as well as the church-union made him opt for the total Latinisation of the Armenians

136 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 248.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81–82.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.); Vanyó, 1933. 113.; Tóth, 2008. 3124−3125. 3189−3190. 137 APF Acta SC, Vol. 55. Fol. 60.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 380–381; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 126–127., Fol. 134–135., Fol. 260–261. 138 APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 252. 139 APF SOCG, Vol. 491. Fol. 13.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. 82. p. 140 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 114.; APF SOCG, Vol. 493. Fol. 30–31., Fol. 376., Fol. 377., Fol. 378.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 249.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 83.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.) 141 Vörös, 1983. 136. 142 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 250.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without Pagination.); Petrowicz, 1988. 86.; Galla, 2005. 142.

113

114

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

in Transylvania.143 For him a true Armenian Christian would keep the rites and holidays of only the Roman Catholic Church. Any Armenian, either a layman or a member of the clergy, who insisted on keeping the old Armenian rites dispite the church-union could be charged with heresy or schismatism. On the other hand, Oxendio was well aware of the bitter sort Armenians had suffered during the past centuries. The reason for all the suffering of the Armenians, Oxendio claimed, was that they had left the path of ecumenical Orthodox and Catholic faith in the 6th century and submitted to false and heretic teachings. Therefore, God kept punishing them. He believed that the only way to put an end to the sufferings of the Armenians was through a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church.144 When studying the question of Oxendio’s Latinisation it proved to be a decisive factor which archbishop or bishop did the ordination at the Urbanian College and what rite they used. Concerning Oxendio’s ordination, two documents have recently been unearthed in which Oxendio requested the Propaganda Fide on June 16th , 1681 to be ordained according to Armenian rites by Archbishop Yovhannēs Šamiramkertac’i (1618–1703), former Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople (1663−1664, 1665−1667), who had just converted to Catholic faith in Rome although Oxendio’s immediate supervisor, in fact, would have been Bishop Minas AlēksaneanZilifdarean T’oxat’ec’i, Bishop of Moldavia who was staying in Transylvania at the time, but Minas was a heretic.145 The Apostolic Holy See, however, did not approve this request explaining that Yovhannēs Šamiramkertac’i was not a true Uniate Catholic. Despite his profession of faith Yovhannēs Šamiramkertac’i still adhered to heretic and schismatic rites146 The Apostolic Holy See would not have liked to have a Uniate seminarist ordained by such “an uncertain Armenian high priest who was wavering in his faith”. The suspicions of the Propaganda Fide were not without foundation since Archbishop Yovhannēs later revoked his profession of

143 APF SOCG, Vol. 495B. Fol. 232–234.; APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 104.; APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 364., Fol. 613–618., Fol. 629., Fol. 638.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 94., Fol. 110.; APF SC, FMPR. Vol. 2. Fol. 315.; Nagy, 2009. 118–119. 144 APF CU, Vol. 4. Fol. 345., Fol. 371., Fol. 487., Fol. 512., Fol. 514., Fol. 557., Fol. 559., Fol. 625., Fol. 627., Fol. 688., Fol. 873–875., Fol. 928., Fol. 1049.; APF CU, Vol. 5. Fol. 51–52., Fol. 137–138., Fol. 161–162., Fol. 202–204., Fol. 244–246.; Fol. 354., Fol. 361, Fol. 477., Fol. 479.+480., Fol. 493., Fol. 495.+496.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82.; Petrowicz, 1988. 86.; Nagy, 2008. 270–277.; Nagy, 2009. 116. 145 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 81.; APF SOCG, Vol. 490. Fol. 110.; APF SOCG, Vol. 492. Fol. 313.; APF SOCG, Vol. 497. Fol. 335.; APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 53., Fol. 54.; Galla, 2010. 139. 141. 146 APF Acta SC, Vol. 51. Fol. 3–4., Fol. 154., Fol. 232., Fol. 255.; APF SOCG, Vol. 493. Fol. 30–31.; APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 2., Fol. 42., Fol. 44., Fol. 54.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 285−287, Fol. 419−420.; APF Ospizi, Vol. 1. Fol. 196−200.

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686)

faith and left for Anatolia to occupy the position of Archbishop of Ałt’amar (Akdamar, Turkey). There he called himself the Catholicos of all Armenians, thereby creating a serious conflict with the legal head of the Armenian Apostolic Church whose seat was in Ēǰmiacin.147 In the end, Oxendio was ordained a priest on August 9th , 1681, along with Johannes Bogdanski, an Armenian of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Step’an Mardiros, an Armenian born in the Motherland, according to the Latin rites. The ordination was conducted by Edoardo Cybo, Secretary of the Propaganda Fide and Titular Archbishop of Seleucia in Isauria.148 Oxendio was ordained a priest in 1681 and went from Rome to Lviv the same year to continue his studies and graduated in theology.149 Then he returned to Rome and was employed by the Propaganda Fide.150 Bishop Nersesowicz’s above mentioned letter, dated September 1683, found him in Rome again from where he was sent by the Apostolic Holy See to Transylvania for missionary work among the Armenians, requested by the bishop.151 Before his mission in Szeklerland, Oxendio first had to go to Warsaw and then to Lviv to have a debriefing with Pallavicini, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and Bishop Nersesowicz regarding his mission. Oxendio Virziresco arrived in Warsaw on August 9th , 1685 and had an audience with Nuncio Pallavicini himself.152 After the “strategic” discussion Oxendio left for Transylvania at the end of September where he started his mission in the Gheorghen Basin of Transylvania at the end of October.153 The letter written by Archbishop Hunanean and dated October 1st , 1686 did not go into detail about Oxendio’s pastoral activities.154 However, we have precise information because in his long report sent to the Propaganda Fide Oxendio informed them about his missionary work between October 1685 and October 1686.155 In his report Oxendio outlined the political situation in the Principality of Transylvania as well as the settlement of the Armenians. He gave year 1672 as the date

147 APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 66–67., Fol. 70., Fol. 71., Fol. 101−102. 148 APF Acta SC, Vol. 51. Fol. 3−4,; Fol. 231., Fol. 255.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 90. Fol. 54.; APF SOCG, Vol. 493. Fol. 376–378.; APF SOCG, Vol. 531. Fol. 298., Fol. 305., Fol. 308.; APF LDSC, Vol. 70. Fol. 58.; APF LDSC, Vol. 76 Fol. 90.; APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 5.; APF LDSC, Vol. 85 Fol. 61.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 680., Fol. 685.; Ališan, 1896a. 129–130.; Petrowicz, 1988. 44. 49–51. 149 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 457.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81. 150 APF Acta SC, Vol. 54. Fol. 207.; Petrowicz, 1988. 86. 151 APF SOCG, Vol. 491. Fol. 12.; APF SOCG, Vol. 492. Fol. 310., Fol. 313.; APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 252.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 419.; APF CU, Vol. 1. Fol. 268.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82. 152 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 417. 153 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 185−186. 154 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462.; Nagy, 2006b. 1019. 155 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 462., Fol. 468–469.

115

116

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

when Prince Michael Apafi I of Transylvania called in the Armenians from Moldavia. It is known that the same year a considerable part of the refugees arrived in Transylvania from Podolia and not Moldavia. Oxendio informed the Propaganda Fide that in Transylvania the Protestant Reformed (Calvinist) Church was the dominant denomination. Although the prince was also a practicing Calvinist, there was relative peaceful co-habitation of the different confessions within the principality. There were Lutheran Saxons and Orthodox Romanians in great number in the principality. According to Oxendio Virziresco, the Armenians led by Bishop Minas, settled down in the province called Szeklerland within Transylvania, or more precisely in Transylvanian provinces of Trei Scaune (Háromszék), Ciuc (Csíkszék), and Gheorghen.156 In connection with this he added that the surrounding population was Catholic Hungarian who had about forty parishes. He also called attention to the fact that the Hungarians have few priests and no high priest. Or if they had one then his see was far away in Hungary in Esztergom.157 Oxendio informed the Propaganda Fide that the Catholics in Transylvania were in a disadvantageous position. However, he added that Count Federico Veterani (1643–1695), Imperial General and protector of the Roman Catholics, stationed in Maramureş. Oxendio met with him in secret to talk to him about his mission. According to Oxendio the deeply committed Catholic Veterani could help his activities only in spirit.158 Therefore Oxendio had to do pastoral work also with the Catholic Hungarians beside converting the Armenians in Szeklerland.159 Oxendio mentioned that his Armenian “brothers and sisters” were heretics and had a negative attitude towards him.160 So, at the beginning Oxendio’s missionary activities did not meet the approval or sympathy of the Armenian community but he and his pastoral work received defamation, hatred and tacit resistance from them. The masses he celebrated were regularly disturbed by the outrageous behaviour of local Armenians.161 In the negative feelings the Armenians expressed towards Oxendio, the vivid memories the local Armenian clergy had of the scandalous church-union in Poland forced by Nikol Torosowicz must have played a great part. Therefore, the local clergy pitted the Armenians against the possible church-union with Rome. In his report Oxendio mentioned the fact that the local Hungarian Catholic clergy and population helped his mission.162 With the help of the Szekler-Hungarian

156 157 158 159 160 161 162

Ibid. Fol. 468. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468.; HC, 1952. 164. 364. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137.; Bethlen, 1860. 17. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 465., Fol. 468. Ibid. Fol. 469.

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686)

clergy, Oxendio was allowed to hold a mass in the Roman Catholic parish church in Gheorgheni. Oxendio learnt that the Armenians had two wooden churches and a chapel in Szeklerland. One of the wooden churches and the chapel were in Gheorgheni while the other wooden church in Frumoasa where the Armenians held their heretic liturgies.163 Oxendio made matters worse by trying to confiscate the local Armenian wooden churches and to forbid the priests of the Armenian Apostolic Church to hold liturgies (surb patarag), to do funerals and wedding ceremonies and baptise infants.164 Therefore, the Armenians turned to the Transylvanian prince for a legal redress, according to Oxendio. His relationship with General Veterani almost cost him dearly since the letters written to Oxendio by Veterani and Bishop Nersesowicz were intercepted. General Veterani asked him to inform him of the political situation in Transylvania as well as the military actions of the Ottoman Turks in Transylvania. Nersesowicz wanted to be informed how his missionary work among the heretics went. The Armenians who did not like Oxendio’s missionary work denounced him to the prince for spying.165 What the result of this charge was Oxendio did not say anything about. He made a list of the Armenians who should not be buried with a correct Catholic funeral ceremony since they lived their lives according to their ancestors’ “heretic” faith and Oxendio did not allow them to have a funeral.166 Therefore, the Armenian clergy hated the Uniate Oxendio and he reported that he was beaten up twice, they even wanted to kill him.167 Oxendio as a neophyte priest was right from his own perspective since he believed that it was only through his faith his Armenian brothers and sisters could be freed from the darkness of “heresy”. In any case, Oxendio had to continue his “Apostolic” mission to convert the Armenians in Transylvania to Roman Catholic faith in a very tense climate. The missionary described in his report sent to the Propaganda Fide how, according to his Roman Catholic faith, he tried to lead his “heretic” compatriots on to the right path.168 He added that every day after Vespers he prayed to the Holy Virgin for the conversion of the Armenians and once a week, he also said the Rosary. Two or three times a week he explained the Armenians the Roman Catholic catechism and each Sunday he preached. In Gheorgheni he taught the children Catholic faith and life in the Sunday school he founded.169

163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Ibid. Fol. 468. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 469. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469.; Bárány, 1888a. 67–68. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468. Ibid.

117

118

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

As was mentioned above, Oxendio’s devotion did not move the Armenians at the beginning. Bishop Minas and his followers did not accept him because they thought a “Latin” heretic priest wanted to take the bishop’s place. He was also accused of inciting conflicts with his Catholicism instead of creating unity among the Armenians. Despite the hatred felt for him at the beginning the situation around Oxendio Virziresco started to change by summer 1686. A serious turn of event was when his family and relatives living in Bistriţa converted to the Roman Catholic faith.170 This was an important factor because Oxendio’s brothers, Step’anos és Łukas had been influential merchants before their conversion. This was great help for the Uniate priest who was doing missionary work by himself.171 Oxendio also reported that apart from his brothers he also converted his mother and his two sisters with their families and two younger brothers as well. He also converted twenty-seven dying Armenians to the Roman Catholic faith. Because of the Sunday school he established twenty-five children became Roman Catholic.172 It made it much easier to convert the rest of the Armenian families to Roman Catholicism since the new Catholics started to “campaign” with Oxendio in Bistrița and the neighbouring villages.173 Oxendio contacted Bishop Minas through his family and persuaded him to accompany him to Lviv where he could have discussions with Archbishop Hunanean and Pallavicini, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw.174 Minas had a definite opinion about Catholicism but remained open to talks. Oxendio on his part was tenaciously trying to win Bishop Minas’s confidence regarding church-union.175 Oxendio realised that Bishop Minas could be converted because the bishop had a strenuous relationship with his own Armenian clergy in Transylvania as well.176 Another reason why Oxendio wanted to take Bishop Minas to Lviv was to stop him destroy the work he had done “in the Lord’s vineyard” undermining him behind his back. He very much trusted that he could persuade the bishop to convert and saw it as the key to the success of his mission.177 The majority of the Armenians, however, especially the local Armenian clergy, the close followers of Bishop Minas were very much opposed to him and rejected the thought of the church-union. At the end of his report Oxendio urged the Propaganda Fide to help him financially since he was unable to cover his living costs and by sending him missals.

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

Ibid. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469. Ibid. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 468. Ibid.

Oxendio Virziresco’s Early Missionary and Pastoral Activity in Transylvania (1685−1686)

It would be important to know what missal Oxendio used. A Latin one or an Armenian translated from Latin? The information we have is that the Uniate priest used a Latin missal and administered the sacraments according to Sacramentarium Romanum.178 Letter written by Opizio Pallavicini, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and Secretary Cybo dated 1687 survived in which they asked the Apostolic Holy See to send to Oxendio in Transylvania not just money but also Latin missals because Oxendio, the missionary had great need of those.179 Latin missals were translated into Armenian the first edition of which came out in 1632 to the best of our knowledge in the printing shop Polyglotta of the Propaganda Fide. The Armenian Uniate priest, Zaccaria Agam (1611–1688), a former student of the Urbanian College in Rome, translated this missal. There were several editions of the Agam translation in the 17th century. The Theatine Francesco Giambattistà Bonesana, the Rector of the Armenian College in Lviv in 1690 called Oxendio’s attention to the edition of 1688 that was published by Giacomo Moretti’s printing shop in Venice. However, we do not know whether this book arrived in Transylvania during Oxendio’s missionary activities.180 Oxendio also requested the Propaganda Fide to send missionaries who could assist him converting the Armenians. Furthermore, Oxendio asked permission so that he could read “heretic” Armenian books. He would do that to be as prepared as he could for the debates with the Armenian clergy. The missionary thought that the key to the success of the future church-union was for the Apostolic Holy See to appoint a bishop to lead the Armenians in Transylvania.181 One cannot exclude that Oxendio here was thinking of himself and wanted to have guarantees incase Bishop Minas would not accept the church-union. During the talks with Bishop Minas in Lviv in 1686 and 1687, Oxendio sent a report to Archbishop Hunanean about the missionary work he had done so far. Archbishop Hunanean must have read Oxendio’s detailed report about his mission of 1685–1686 then. Oxendio said he would like to continue his missionary work but for this he requested help: money, missionaries and Latin missals because he found that in Szeklerland Armenians used the heretic Armenian non-Catholic missals.182 At the end of his report he voiced his fear that according to the infor-

178 APF SOCG, Vol. 492. Fol. 313. 179 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 81., Fol. 114.; APF SOCG, Vol. 497. Fol. 335., Fol. 338.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469.; Galla, 2010. 142. 180 APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 1.; APF SC, FA.Vol. 3. Fol. 403–404., Fol. 419–420., Fol. 421.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 70., Fol. 82–83., Fol. 219., Fol. 221.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 9. Fol. 250–252., Fol. 474–475., Fol. 595–598., Fol. 601., Fol. 604.; Kovács, 2007. 40–41. 181 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469. 182 APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 33–34.

119

120

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

mation he received the Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin in Armenia ordained a “heretic” bishop, Theodore Wartanowicz of Polish birth, in order to send him among the Armenians of Transylvania.183 Hunanean, on his turn, drew attention to the danger that Wartanowicz as a bishop could cause if the Armenian Catholicos sent him to Moldavia or Transylvania because the mission initiated by Oxendio and the conversions could come to a stop.184 The archbishop thought Oxendio to be the only person who could accomplish the church-union of the Armenians who settled down in Transylvania. Therefore, he wrote to the Propaganda Fide to appoint Oxendio the fastest they could as the apostolic administrator or vicar to be sent among the Armenians in Transylvania. This should be done so that Oxendio could continue his missionary work with efficiency and with more authority within the Transylvanian Principality.185 Hunanean mentioned Bishop Johannes Bernatowicz who had been deposed in Lviv and who also wanted to become the bishop of the Armenians in Transylvania. The archbishop also wrote about the rumours according to which simple priests held heretic liturgies that could be concelebrated only by bishops.186 At the end of his letter, Archbishop Hunanean emphasised how important it was that the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania took place because otherwise the already converted Armenians could also waver in their Catholic faith. Therefore, it would be vital to send them a Uniate high priest.187

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome One of the most controversial and mystical issues of the catholicisation of the Armenians in Transylvania is the alleged confession of Catholic faith of Bishop Minas in 1686 which has been identified so far with church-union due to the lack of sufficient information. Currently we have very few sources available for research about the life of Bishop Minas. All we know is that the bishop was born around 1610 in the town of Tokat located in what is now Turkey. He probably concluded his studies in theology at the beginning of the 1630s in the Seminary of Ēǰmiacin in the Armenian Motherland. Not a lot later he earned his doctorate. After ordination he served in the household of the Armenian Catholicos and was appointed Bishop of Moldavia by Armenian Catholicos Philip I (P’ilipos Ałbakec’i) in 1649. The above-mentioned episcopate was under the ecclesiastic jurisdiction of 183 184 185 186 187

APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469., Fol. 488., Fol. 490. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434.; Petrowicz, 1988. 79. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 469., Fol. 498.; Petrowicz, 1988. 79. 86. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 498.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 13.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. 82. p.

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome

the Armenian Apostolic Archbishopric in Lviv.188 The appointment, ordination, and pontificate of Bishop Minas almost completely coincided with Archbishop Torosowicz’s controversial church-union in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Armenian Apostolic Episcopate in Moldavia was one of the headquarters of the anti-union politics and Bishop Minas himself was a fierce opponent of the church-union with Rome.189 The bishop left his See in Moldavia in 1668 with a lot of his followers because he participated in a failed coup against Voivode Gheorghe Duca (1665–1666, 1668–1672, 1678–1683) and was forced to go to Transylvania as a refugee. However, there is no precise information how many Armenian families left the Moldavian Principality then. All we can assume is that the Armenians meant to stay in Transylvania only temporarily and they intended to return once the political situation consolidated in the territory of the Moldavian Principality.190 It is known that several Armenian families moved back to Moldavia after Voivode Gheorghe Duca was ousted once and for all at the beginning of the 1680s.191 A fragment of a letter survived that was written by the then old Bishop Minas in which he wrote that he would like to return to his See the sooner the better.192 There was a good reason why the Armenian bishop wrote this. Catholicos James IV and his deputy (at’or.akal, tełapah), Archbishop Ełiazar Ayntapc’i193 interpreted Bishop Minas’ flight as if the episcopate remained vacant in Moldavia. Therefore, they appointed Father Anat’olios Ŗusot’ as the Armenian Bishop in Moldavia who had to have his seat in Galaţi because since the beginning of the 16th century Polish troops had stationed in the Saint Oxan fortified Monastery (Vank’ Oxani Srboyn) in Suçeava, the traditional See of the Episcopate.194 Furthermore, the departure of Bishop Minas created tensions in the Armenian communities that remained in the Moldavian Principality who, against the protests of the catholicos, elected a vardapet called Sahak as their bishop instead of Minas who fled the country. The Apostolic Holy See also noted the fact that the bishop fled to Transylvania and appointed the Polish-Armenian Jan (Yovhannēs) Kieremowicz (1631–1677) from Lviv as a Titular Bishop at the head of the Armenians in Moldavia in 1669. Bishop Kieremowicz, however, never got to Moldavia since he did not receive authorisation from the Apostolic Holy See. Therefore he stayed in Lviv where he

188 Ališan, 1896a. 125–126.; Nistor, 1912. 55–57. 109. 189 APF SC, FA. Vol. 1. Fol. 525–526., Fol. 602–610.; MA, Ms. No. 5350 (Unnumbered folio.). 190 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 338.; Abrahamyan, 1964. 352.; K’olanĵian, 359–361.; Vörös, 1983. 130. 191 MA, Ms. No. 9800 (Unnumbered folio.); Dašean, 1895. 116.; Éble, 1915. 13. 192 Ališan, 1896a. 127. 193 Ōrmanean, 1993. 257. 194 APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 345–346.;ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. 81. p.; Benda, 2003. 717.

121

122

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

continued litigation with Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz until the end of his life. After his death in 1677 his position was not filled.195 According to the well-known tradition Bishop Minas left for Lviv at the end of 1686 as a result of Oxendio’s missionary work where he held talks regarding the church-union.196 The same year the bishop made a confession of faith (confessio/ professio fidei catholicae) on behalf of the whole Armenian community and converted to Roman Catholicism in the presence of Opizio Pallavicini, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, and Vardan Hunanean, Armenian Uniate Archbishop and established the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. After converting to Roman Catholic faith, he intended to return to his faithful but on his way home the old Armenian bishop fell ill and died at the very end of 1686.197 Regarding his confession of faith, the question arises where this legend originated and who started it. The Czech-Moravian Jesuit Father, Rudolf Bzensky SJ wrote about Minas’s conversion to Roman Catholic faith first. This writing is held as a valuable document in the Hevenesi Collection of the University Library of the Loránd Eötvös University in Budapest. Father Bzensky stayed in Transylvania at the beginning of the 1690 and had a good relationship there with the Catholic clergy as well as the Jesuits, among others with historian Gábor Hevenesi SJ and the by then Bishop Oxendio Virziresco. The Czech-Moravian Jesuit father put together his writing entitled Origines propagationis variae fidei in Transylvania on the contemporary confessional situation in Transylvania for Gábor Hevenesi in 1694. In this, Father Bzensky dedicated a few pages to the Armenians in Transylvania. In this document he put down credible information regarding Armenian church-history. Analysing the text it seems clear that Bzensky was well-informed regarding Armenian ecclesiastical matters and must have received ths information from an Armenian Uniate clergyman. The source of information undoubtedly was Oxendio as was proved by the recent studies of the renown Hungarian church-historian, Antal Molnár.198 In Father Bzensky’s description, Bishop Minas, under Oxendio‘s influence, refuted his Eastern Armnenian faith and accompanied him to Lviv so that he could make a confession of Catholic faith to Pallavicini, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw. Uniate

195 APF SOCG, Vol. 120. Fol. 322.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 394., Fol. 630., Fol. 631.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 1. Fol. 168–169., Fol. 233r.–236., Fol. 257r.–259., Fol. 358.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 126–127., Fol. 134–135.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 3. Fol. 3., Fol. 7.; Petrowicz, 1950. 248.; Schütz, 1987. 304.; Selian, 1999. 24–26. 196 K’olanĵian, 1967. 362. 197 MA, MS. No. 9748. Fol. 60., Fol. 61.; Vörös, 1983. 136–137.; Petrowicz, 1988. 78.; Mutafian, 2018. 250−251. 198 Molnár, 2001. 67–78.; Molnár, 2007. 26.; Molnár, 2009. 227.

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome

Archbishop Hunanean also participated at the ceremony. Following this, Bishop Minas returned to Transylvania with Oxendio. Unfortunately on their way the old bishop passed away.199 A report entitled Fidelis relatio, written by an unknown author in 1693 and recently diiscovered, at first sight confirms the description the Czech-Moravian Jesuit father gave of Bishop Minas’s confession of faith.200 This writing details the settlement of the Armenians in Transylvania and their confessional situation. This document shows a lot of similarities in its structure with Father Bzensky’s piece yet there is one important difference. Its message centres around the circumstances of the establishment of the Armenian community in Elisabethopolis in 1692. The document briefly mentions Bishop Minas declaring that he officially refuted his heretic faith in Lviv and made a confession of Catholic faith with Pallavicini, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw.201 Similarly to Bzensky, the unknown author of the Fidelis relatio202 seems well-informed of Armenian ecclesiastical affairs. It seems unambiguous that the author of this document was informed by Bishop Oxendio himself. These data seem to be supported by a short entry held in the Roman Archives of the Jesuit Order. In the Yearbook of 1697 of the Austrian Province (Provincia Austriaca) there is a small size summary written in Latin about the situation of the Armenians in Transylvania. In connection with the conversion to Catholic faith two Armenian bishops played major roles. The author did not write down the names but it is clear that one of the bishops was Bishop Minas while the other one was Oxendio Virziresco. This note also suggests that Bishop Minas took an active role in the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. The document, however, was written eleven years after Minas died in 1697. Critical analysis of this source clearly indicates that the information provided here shows a lot of similarities with the above-mentioned documents. The informant here must have been the by then Bishop Oxendio.203 Father Bzensky’s description of Bishop Minas’s conversion became a topos in Hungarian and Transylvanian historiography. The fact that the Jesuit chronicler, Father András Ilia SJ (1694−1754) adopted Father Bzensky’s information almost word by word in his book on the peoples and confessions of Transylvania, published in 1730, contributed to this a great deal. Kristóf Lukácsy, Armenian Uniate parish priest in Armenopolis, whose monograph published in Latin in 1859 was

199 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 32.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.); ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 29. Pag. 346.; ELTE EKK. CK. A. Vol. 11. Pag. 112.; Lukácsy, 1859. 68.; Pap, 2018. 112. 200 ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126//II. Fol. 455.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81–84.; Nagy, 2008. 251–285. 201 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 82. 202 Balla, 2017. 42−44. 203 ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81.; ARSI, FA. CB. Vol. 126/II. Fol. 536., Fol. 602.

123

124

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

considered a manual for researchers of Armenian church-history in Transylvania on his turn, adopted from Ilia the story about Bishop Minas’s confession of faith.204 Everone who studied Armenian church-history in Transylvania took over this story from Lukácsy without any reservations, and the same happened in Hungarian research centering upon Catholic church-history.205 Gregorio Petrowicz, the Polish-Armenian church-historian, cited Bishop Minas’s confession of faith word by word from Kristóf Lukácsy in his book on the Armenian Uniate Church in Poland in which he dedicated a few short and sketchy chapters to the history of the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania.206 These pieces of information made it almost unambiguous that at the end of his life, Bishop Minas became a faithful follower of the Roman Catholic Church and everybody took it as a fact. The question, however, arises why we should doubt Bishop Minas’s conversion to Roman Catholic faith. From Rome’s perspective the multi-confessional Transylvania was considered a target country for missionary work in the 17th century. The Propaganda Fide, the institution of the Apostolic Holy See that coordinated missionary work dedicated a lot of attention to the Catholic missions in Transylvania in the 17th century. The Apostolic Holy See did not concern itself with the Armenians for two decades after their settlement in Transylvania between 1668 and 1672. The missionary work among them, in fact, was initiated by the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv at the turn of 1683 and 1684. They supported their request by the fact that the Armenian refugees in Transylvania were originally under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Archbishop in Lviv and they intended to keep this right even after the church-union had been signed.207 The Apostolic Holy See approved this request made by the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv and assisted them by delegating to Transylvania in the person of Oxendio Virziresco an Armenian Uniate missionary, born in Moldavia, trained at Urbanian College, the Seminary of the Propaganda Fide, to accomplish the missonmary work there. The objective was clear: to achieve the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania.208

204 Ilia, 1730. 64. 70. 72. 205 Bárány, 1888a, 67. 71.; Govrikean, 1894. 10. 14–17. 122–124.; Merza, 1896. 5. 9–10.; Éble, 1915. 10. 15.; Hodinka, 1909. 2–3.; Karácsonyi, 1929. 219–220.; Trócsányi, 1983. 173.; Gazdovits, 2006. 274–275. 206 Petrowicz, 1988. 82.; Kovács, 2006. 57. 207 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 380–381.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 126–127., Fol. 134.–135. 208 APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 114.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 249.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 33.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 83.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.); Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 185.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 363.

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome

In Oxendio’s mission, it was a decisive factor what relationship the missionary established with Bishop Minas and the Armenian clergy in Transylvania. Oxendio started his missionary work in Gheorgheni, in Transylvania early autumn, 1685 where he was successful in converting people.209 In autumn 1686 in a long report sent to the Propaganda Fide, he called attention to Bistriţa where the Armenians led by Bishop Minas and the clergy showed an especially strong resistance. According to his report, they attempted to kill him twice at the bishop’s incitement.210 Armenians in Transylvania saw Rome’s man in the missionary who created confusion in the community with his missionary’s activities. The Armenian clergy did all they could to remove Oxendio from Transylvania.211 The fierce anti-union feeleings of the Armenian clergy stemmed in the pro-church-union policy of the “infamous and inglorius” Nikol Torosowicz, Armenian Archbishop in Lviv. Oxendio described Bishop Minas as an old and ailing high priest in his report and mentioned that not everybody accepted Bishop Minas’s leading role within the Armenian clergy in Transylvania. He suspected that a conflict was about to erupt among the representatives of the Armenian Church in Transylvania. Therefore, due to these internal conflicts, Oxendio was trying to win over Bishop Minas to the church-union.212 The missionary was well aware that the key to the success of the church-union was the conversion of the Armenain Apostolic Bishop in Transylvania. At the end of 1686 Oxendio’s activities seemed to lead to success as he took Bishop Minas to Lviv so that he could have talks about the church-union with Archbishop Hunanean. Oxendio had high hopes for these meetings and trusted that the two high priests would come to an agreement about the union due to their family backgrounds.213 The documents held in the Historical Archive of the Propaganda Fide, however, concern the talks and Bishop Minas’s death only, not the results of the talks. Among the documents of the institution directing missions there is not one, official or semi-official, which would support the claim that Minas actually took the confession of faith with the Roman Catholic Church in Lviv.214 A fragmented letter of bad consistency dated August, 1700, 14 years after Bishop Minas’s death, was found in the Historical Archive of the Propaganda Fide. There is an allusion in it regarding a certain Bishop Minas’s confession of faith with Rome although the names and the circumstaces described seem confused. The Theatine Father, Sebastiano Maria Accorsi CR (1640−1704), Rector of the Armenian

209 210 211 212 213 214

APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468.; Petrowicz, 1988. 86. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 468. APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469. Petrowicz, 1988. 1. APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 90–91.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 374–375.

125

126

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

College in Lviv, addressed the letter to the cardinals of the Propaganda Fide. In the document, the Rector mentioned that Bishop Minas who fled to Transylvania was ordained by an Armenian patriarch (catholicos) called Isaack (Sahak). After this the bishop left for Lviv where he made a confession of faith with Rome.215 Accorsi’s letter was closely linked to Oxendio’s activities what was in frequent correspondence with him in 1700 regarding the organisation of the mission in Moldavia. The Rector mentioned the fact that he received this information from Oxendio.216 The first problem concerning the letter was that there was no patriarch called Isaac in Armenia then although it is true that in Cilicia there was a Catholicos named Isaac who headed the Armenian Church there and died at the beginning of 1686. Minas, however, was appointed and ordained by Philip I, Catholicos of Armenia, and not Isaac, Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia, in 1649. Most probably this piece contained incorrect information. In the critical analysis of Accorsi’s letter Bishop Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka, Uniate Armenian missionary and historian’s chronology provides great help. Roszka reports for year 1699 that Minas Sargis T’oxat’ec’i (1677–1700), Armenian Apostolic Patriarch in Jerusalem whose name at first sight might seem identical with the name of Bishop Minas [Alēksanean–Zilifdarean] T’oxat’ec’i who fled to Transylvania, made a confession of faith with Rome in Constantinople. The patriarch declared that he accepted the prayer Filioque procedit (in Classical Armenian: błxi ew yOrdwoyn), and the diophysite teaching of the Jesus Chris’s two natures. This conversion was considered a sensational piece of news among Roman Catholics. Most probably the names and the cases of the two Armenian high priest were merged because in 1700 when Father Accorsi wrote his letter Bishop Minas from Transylvania had already been dead 14 years before. Patriarch Minas Sargis T’oxat’ec’i, however, not long afterwards had to refute his conversion under the pressure of the Armenian Apostolic Church and lost his position. The deposed Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Jerusalem in the end left for Rome and remained in Rome until his death in 1737.217 Rector Accorsi’s letter did not make it clear whether Bishop Minas of Transylvania made a confession of faith or not.

215 APF SOCG, Vol. 537. Fol. 418.; Petrowicz, 1988. 85. 216 APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 341–346.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 71. Fol. 69–70.; APF SOCG, Vol. 537. Fol. 416–417., Fol. 419. 217 APF SOCG, Vol. 534. Fol. 6–7., Fol. 29–32., Fol. 37., Fol. 426., Fol. 428–429.; APF SOCG, Vol. 536. Fol. 244–246., Fol. 248–252., Fol. 254–255.; APF SOCG, Vol. 539. Fol. 274., Fol. 275.+278.; APF LDSC, Vol. 89. Fol. 42–45., Fol. 72–73. Fol. 229., Fol. 240., Fol. 272–273., Fol. 278.; APF LDSC, Vol. 90. Fol. 24–25.; PL, AEV SPK. No. 361.; Hofman, 1935. 81−90.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 190–192.; Kévorkian, 1981. 402–416.; Kévorkian, 1982. 346−348.; Kévorkian, 1985. 367–370.; Setian, 1992.

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome

We do not have an official report from Opizio Pallavicini, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw on this and no source confirms that Bishop Minas actually met the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw in person. The documents in the Apostolic (Secret) Archive in Vatican City regarding the Apostolic Nunciatures in Vienna and Warsaw say nothing of this meeting.218 Therefore we must ask the question: why do the sources of the Apostolic Holy See keep quiet about Bishop Minas’s conversion? The reply may seem simple: There are no documents on this because the bishop, in fact, did not make a confession of faith with in front of either Nuncio Pallavicini or Archbishop Hunanean on behalf of either himself or the Armenian community in Transylvania. About the years 1686 and 1687 we do not have any information or missionary report that would confirm the Catholic conversion of Bishop Minas.219 Two letters written by Archbishop Hunanean to Edoardo Cybo, Secretary of the Propaganda Fide on February 14th , 1687 proved to be important sources of information on Bishop Minas. In these letters the Archbishop Hunanean reported on the missionary work among the Armenians in Transylvania in which he highlighted the fact that Oxendio did a good job despite the dangers. Archbishop Hunanean did not confirm in these letters that Bishop Minas made a confession of faith with the Roman Catholic Church at the end of 1686 in Lviv. The only thing the archbishop mentioned was that following Bishop Minas’s death serious conflict erupted within the Armenian community regarding succession and he notified the Apostolic Holy See of Bishop Minas’s death as a matter of fact.220 Hunanean may have been worried following Bishop Minas’s death that there was no bishop among the Armenians in Transylvania and as a result chaos might reign among them. In his letters, therefore suggested the Apostolic Holy See to appoint the Uniate Oxendio as the Apostolic Administrator or Episcopal Vicar of the Armenians in Transylvania in the near future.221 This recommendation must have been a milestone for Oxendio in his strife to be appointed as a Bishop of the Armenians in Transylvania in some time. Archbishop Hunanean made his suggestion because he was afraid that the Armenian Catholicos may appoint, ordain 218 Welikyj, 1954.; Welikyj, 1969. 219 APF Acta SC, Vol. 55. Fol. 234–235.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 56. Fol. 207., Fol. 254–257.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 57. Fol. 114., Fol. 125–127.; APF SOCG, Vol. 493. Fol. 339–341., Fol. 406–407.; APF SOCG, Vol. 494. Fol. 370–371., Fol. 373.; APF SOCG, Vol. 495A. Fol. 36–39.; APF SOCG, Vol. 495B. Fol. 231–235.; APF SOCG, Vol. 496. Fol. 192–193., Fol. 502–503., Fol. 505.; APF SOCG, Vol. 497. Fol. 278–281.; APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 33–34., Fol. 40., Fol. 135–136., Fol. 155.; APF LDSC, Vol. 77. Fol. 10., Fol. 27., Fol. 43., Fol. 62., Fol. 82., Fol. 122–123.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 462., Fol. 464., Fol. 465.; APF SC, FMPR. Vol. 2. Fol. 244., Fol. 260–261., Fol. 264.–267.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 185. 220 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 498.; HC, 1958. 243. 221 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 498; Gazdovits, 2006. 275.; Nagy, 2009b. 25–40.

127

128

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

and send Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz born in Lviv as an Eastern rite Armenian Apostolic Bishop in Transylvania. This request or recommendation fit in well with Oxendio’s ideas since at the end of his report written in 1686 he saw the guarantee for a lasting church-union for the Armenians in Transylvania in the Apostolic Holy See appointing a Uniate Armenian Bishop to head the Armenians in Transylvania.222 Archbishop Hunanean adopted Oxendio’s idea in his letters whose ambition was to acquire the bishop’s office. The book written by the Uniate Armenian church-historian, Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka is a similar case as Archbishop Vardan Hunanean’s. He only mentioned the circumstances of Bishop Minas’s death and funeral and mentioned that the bishop had suffered from gall (kidney) stone condition (mizargelut’iwn) and added that after the funeral Bishop Minas’s grave was surrounded by light descending from Heaven. On the other hand he did not say a word of Bishop Minas making a confession of faith with the Roman Catholic Church in 1686.223 Archbishop Hunanean’s two letters and Roszka’s writing suggest that the church-union talks did not go well with Bishop Minas. It does not seem proven that an Armenian Apostolic Bishop who previously vehemently opposed the church-union could be persuaded to sign the union agreement with the Catholic Church. Making a confession of faith with Rome or signing the church-union agreement in the eyes of the high priest would have been identical with giving up national identity since during the debacles of Armenian history the church-policy of the Armenian Apostolic Church merged with Armenian national identity. Not long ago a letter was found in the Archives of the Apostolic Holy See written by Bishop Minas in 1686. In this, Bishop Minas wrote about his talks with Archbishop Hunanean. In the document there was a part where he mentioned that he took two ecclesiastical codices written in Classical Armenian language with him: one of these was a collection of homilies (Čarĕntir) and another codex containing the teachings of Armenian church-fathers (Haranc’vark’). The bishop meant to explain through these two codice the universalitiy and the true faith of the Armenian (Eastern) Apostolic Church which both the catholics and the Greek considered incorrectly schismatic and heretic based on the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon.224 In other words, according to Bishop Minas, his faith from the perspective of the Armenian Apostolic Church was both Catholic and Orthodox. Therefore he did not understand why they wanted to convert him and the Armenians in Transylvania to Roman Catholic faith.

222 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 469. 223 Bžškeanc’, 1830. 119.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 186. 224 APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 456–457.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 219–220.

Bishop Minas’s Alleged Confession of Faith with Rome

All this makes it more plausble that in Lviv instead of church-union talks there were fierce polemics. Therefore, it is more advisable to conclude that Bishop Minas had religious debates in Lviv and did not make a confession of faith as Oxendio Virziresco and Archbishop Hunanean would have liked to force him to do. Another document written by Oxendio Virziresco himself in 1687, that was recently discovered in the Historical Archive of the Propaganda Fide reinforces that Bishop Minas did not convert to Catholicism. The Armenian Uniate missionary addressed this letter to the cardinals of the Propaganda Fide in which he mentioned that the Bishop Minas died as a heretic and not as a Uniate one at the very end of 1686. He urged the Propaganda Fide to appoint a Uniate bishop to head the Armenians in Transylvania due to the vacant episcopal office.225 At the beginning of 1688, Oxendio Virziresco wrote a report to Edoardo Cybo, the Secretary of the Propaganda Fide. In this, he summed up again his missionary activities between 1685 and 1687. He recounted Bishop Minas’s death and wrote also that at the end of 1686 he was in conflict with the “heretic” bishop and his “heretic” clergy because he, Oxendio intended to forbid Eastern rites to be performed during holy liturgy (in Armenian surb patarag) either in churches or in private homes.226 Therefore it is safe to conclude that it is highly unlikely that Armenian priests in Transylvania that year would have been inclined to accept the church-union. Based on this, we can state that Oxendio made controversial declaratons regarding Bishop Minas’s conversion to Catholic faith since what he claimed to the Propaganda Fide in the 1680s was different than what he said to Father Bzensky and the unknown author of the document Fidelis relatio in the 1690s. Bishop Minas died at the end of 1686. Only one person profited from his death: Oxendio Virziresco. As was mentioned above, the missionary had high hopes for the Uniate episcopal position and assessed that the bishop’s death made it easier for him to accomplish his mission among the Armenians in Transylvania. He presumed that Bishop Minas’s death created chaos within the community because several people aspired to become a bishop. Therefore he made the Apostolic Holy See understand that by appointing a Uniate bishop they could avoid having a “schismatic and heretic” bishop sent from Armenia to fill Bishop Minas’s vacant position.227 To conclude what we said regarding Bishop Minas’s confession of faith, first of all, let us state that in fact it was Oxendio Virziresco who created a legend or a myth of Bishop Minas’s conversion to Catholic faith with the help of which he successfully misled posterity. Oxendio created a version, which legitimised him in connection with Minas. With this version, he intended to justify that only he, Oxendio had the

225 APF CU, Vol. 3. Fol. 472. 226 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 13. 227 APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434., Fol. 469.

129

130

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

right to become the Uniate Bishop of the Armenians in Transylvania. That was why he spread the story of Bishop Minas’s conversion to Catholicism.228 It was clearly in Oxendio interest to spread the story that, in 1686, Bishop Minas made a confession of faith with Rome and passed away as a Uniate bishop. He did this so that he can acquire the support for his episcopal appointment with Archbishop Hunanean, Apostolic Nuncio Pallavicini, his successor Giacomo Cantelmi or the Apostolic Holy See. Even the renowned Armenian expert, Gregorio Petrowicz who spent decades researching the archives of the Apostolic Holy See did not trace whether Bishop Minas had made a confession of faith with Rome at all. Gregorio Petrowicz adopted Kristóf Lukácsy’s view who, indirectly based on the information of Father Bzensky, wrote down the story of what had happened to Bishop Minas. It is a well-known fact that Oxendio was employed by the Propaganda Fide and it was this institution that sent him to do missionary work in Transylvania. Oxendio stayed in close contact with the missionary institution all through his life that can be seen in his frequent correspondence with the Propaganda Fide. In these letters no one mentioned Bishop Minas’s confession of faith with Rome in 1686. If the conversion to Catholic faith had taken place in Lviv ample sources would be available on this in the Historical Archive of the Propaganda Fide since the institution of the Apostolic Holy See that oversees missions have always handled cases with utmost attention when an Orthodox high priest converted to Catholicism. We can safely conclude that Bishop Minas did not make a confession of faith with Rome and the whole story seems a fiction and a myth of later fabrication.

Bishop Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz’s Ambitions regarding Transylvania Bishop Minas’s death, in Archbishop Vardan Hunanean’s view may have opened the way for the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. Hunanean tried to profit from this opportunity and to prevent the Armenian Apostolic Church to send his own candidate to Transylvania or Moldavia. Therefore, he intended to persuade the Apostolic Holy See to appoint his candidate, the Uniate Oxendio instead of Bishop Nersesowicz as the ecclesiastical administrator of the Armenians in Transylvania. In February 1687, the Apostolic Holy See gave its blessing to this.229 An argument for this decision was that Oxendio was of Moldavian birth. Therefore, he knew the dialect the Armenians who settled down in Transylvania spoke and conducted missionary work among them in Transylvania since 1685 as a Uniate

228 Lukácsy, 1859. 68.; Petrowicz, 1988. 82.; Mutafian, 2018. 250. 229 Lukácsy, 1859. 68. 71. 139.; Bárány, 1888a. 66.

Bishop Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz’s Ambitions regarding Transylvania

father or Uniate priest. Following Bishop Minas’s death, Archbishop Hunanean explained the Apostolic Holy See in his above-mentioned letter why appointing Oxendio was a necessary step. The Apostolic Holy See understood that closing the affair as seamlessly as possible would be vital for Hunanean’s archbishopric. Vardan Hunanean recommended the cardinals of the Propaganda Fide to appoint and ordain a Uniate bishop instead of the deceased Bishop Minas right away and send him to Transylvania afterwards. The ecclesiastic jurisdiction of the archdiocese in Lviv, of Archbishop Hunanean himself, would extend over the episcopate in Transylvania.230 Learning from previous cases in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, he would have liked to prevent internal conflicts to erupt. Archbishop Hunanean’s worries in this regard were not unfounded. In his letter, he mentioned for example that schismatic Bishop Theodore Wartanowicz was about to set off to Transylvania.231 Previously, Wartanowicz was Nikol Torosowicz’s right hand but did not show inclination for full conversion to Catholicism.232 Therefore, he could cause a lot of complications either in Transylvania or Moldavia. Hunanean understood that Wartanowicz claimed to be Bishop Minas’s successor to be and erred from the right path of Catholic faith and declared himself a faithful follower of the “heretic” (Eastern) Armenian Apostolic faith.233 Hunanean soon sent another letter to the Propaganda Fide in which the archbishop stated that he could not find a more suitable person to head the future episcopate than the true catholic Oxendio, alumnus of the Urbanian College in Rome. Therefore, for the time being Oxendio had to be confirmed in his position as an Apostolic Administrator.234 Edoardo Cybo, Secretary of the Propaganda Fide contacted Nuncio Pallavicini in this matter in 1688 asking for information and advice to sort it out. Instead of Oxendio, the Nuncio Pallavicini wanted to send Bishop Nersesowicz who was offended by Archbishop Hunanean since the nuncio thought that Bishop Nersesowicz as a Uniate bishop would be more suitable and experienced as the spiritual leader of the Armenians in Transylvania than Oxendio. An argument for Bishop Nersesowicz could have been the fact that both Cybo and Pallavicini knew his previous missionary work as well as his activities at the head of the archbishop’s office in Lviv between 1683 and 1686. Therefore, they recommended

230 231 232 233

Lukácsy, 1859. 69–70.; Petrowicz, 1988. 78–79. APF LDSC, Vol. 73. Fol. 98−99. APF LDSC, Vol. 72. Fol. 5−6., Fol. 176−177. APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 7–8., Fol. 22–23.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 3. Fol. 434.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 51.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 126–127., Fol. 134–135.; Petrowicz, 1988. 82. 92–93.; Kovács, 2006. 57. 234 Petrowicz, 1988. 90−91.

131

132

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

the Propaganda Fide the appointment of Nersesowicz as an Armenian Uniate Bishop of Transylvania against Hunanean’s wish.235 While the Propaganda Fide was weighing pros and cons in the matter of who to choose as the Armenian Uniate Bishop in Transylvania, Wartanowicz was trying to make most of the opportunity to achieve his appointment as the Armenian Bishop of Transylvania with the authorities of the Apostolic Holy See. Therefore, he sent a letter from Constantinople to the cardinals on August 28th , 1689 in which he requested to extend his jurisdiction as the Armenian Bishop of Moldavia and Wallachia on to the ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians in Transylvania. He added that after Bishop Minas’s death he was approached several times from Transylvania by the representatives of the Armenians in Transylvania who informed him that they would be happy to see him as the Armenian Bishop of Transylvania (although other sources did not confirm this). Last but not least, he emphasised that he would be a good pastor of the above-mentioned community and the Pope in Rome would also find his person suitable to fill the position of bishop.236 The Propaganda Fide did not like this since Wartanowicz who had been one of the most loyal followers of Archbishop Torosowicz was well-known in Rome and was considered an unreliable clergyman. Wartanowicz intended to promote his candidacy by referring to the fact that he was appointed bishop by Armenian Catholios James IV.237 He claimed that right after his appointment the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch sent him to Lviv so that he could keep an eye on the by then old Torosowicz. However, no Armenian source confirms Wartanowicz’s appointment as Armenian Apostolic Bishop. Neither would data support the claim that he was an ordained bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. He never received any episcopal appointment from the Apostolic Holy See. Documents refer to him only as a close collaborator of Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz. Wartanowicz’s candidacy was met with strong and definite resistance. Giacomo Cantelmi, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Titular Archbishop of Caesarea, succeeding Pallavicini, as well as the Theatine Fraters had doubts about the authenticity of Wartanowicz’s candidacy.238 They voiced their reservations saying Wartanowicz was not a Catholic or if he was his faith was wavering. With his appointment there was the chance that the Armenians of Transylvania would reconvert to their former “heretic” religion from which Oxendio lifted them up at such high costs between

235 236 237 238

APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 90. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 51., Fol. 69. Petrowicz, 1988. 92.; Kovács, 2006. 57. Kovács, 2006. 57.

Bishop Theodore Thoros Wartanowicz’s Ambitions regarding Transylvania

1685 and 1689.239 Nuncio Cantelmi explained the details of the matter to the pope in person when he was staying in Rome in spring 1689.240 In the meantime, Wartanowicz arrived in Venice from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He decided to stay with the Armenian community because he was afraid that his former dubious affairs from the time, he had worked for Torosowicz may come to light and he would be arrested for fraud and abuse of power and corruption as soon as he stepped on the grounds of the Papal States.241 His letters attest to the fact that he was seriously weighing the possibility of leaving Italy to avoid justice.242 There are few pieces of information about Wartanowicz’s former activities. It is known that after Archbishop Torosowicz’s death he spent ten years in the Middle East. In his letter sent to the Propaganda Fide from Venice he made a confession regarding his past. He mentioned that in the past he was guilty of a lot of abuses. He also admitted that during his stay in Rome between 1668 and 1675 he spent the hundred scudos accorded to him on drinks and “sluts”so he did not spend these funds as he should have and could not account for the money. Therefore, he was obliged to leave Lviv abruptly for Armenia without any ecclesiastical approval.243 Wartanowicz, however, enjoyed strong support within the Armenian Apostolic Church. His uncle, Archbishop Stefan Wartanowicz (Step’anos Vardanean), was a native of Lviv, and one of the high-ranking officials of the Catholicos’s office in Armenia. Most probably a few years later he managed to acquire from the Armenian Catholicos the appointment as a Bishop in Moldavia and Transylvania for his nephew.244 This, however, has not been confirmed by any document so far, as was mentioned above. When Wartanowicz saw that his candidacy for the position of Armenian Bishop in Transylvania met with unenthusiastic reception at the Apostolic Holy See decided to leave Venice and go through Bulgaria to Poland at the beginning of 1690. It is unknown what motivated the Armenian priest to go for the episcopal appointment. In any case, the documents indicated that he did not give up his ambition to become a bishop. It was a bold step since the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw previously voiced his reservations and opposed his candidacy. Wartanowicz was trying to win over Hunanean. This, however, was difficult since he had confronted Hunanean several times in 1678. Wartanowicz had been a key player in making work

239 240 241 242 243 244

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 82–83., Fol. 86–87. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 64. Petrowicz, 1950. 259–260. APF Acta SC, Vol. 60. Fol. 125–127. APF SC, FA. Vol. 2. Fol. 807.

133

134

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

impossible for Hunanean as a coadjutor (in the rank of Titular Bishop) to Archbishop Torosowicz. Hunanean rebuked Wartanowicz in part for personal reasons, in part because Wartanowicz was not a faithful Catholic and because in his view Wartanowicz intended to prove his appointment with a fake document. Besides Hunanean, the strongest opposition to Wartanowicz was expressed by Rector Bonesana. He turned to the Polish court with the request to imprison Wartanowicz for his past deeds and fraudulent behaviour. Father Bonesana’s determination whose word counted much with the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and the Polish high priest surprised Wartanowicz and he retreated. He sent a new letter to Rome and asked pardon for his sins from the cardinals of the Propaganda Fide.245 As a result of the frequent correspondence between Rector Bonesana and Secretary Cybo, in July 1691 the Propaganda Fide decided to convoke Wartanowicz from Lviv to Rome. His safety on his way to Rome would be guaranteed and his travel costs covered.246 Cardinal Angelo Paluzzi Altieri degli Albertoni, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide, headed the investigation in Wartanowicz’s case. On October 31st , 1691 informed the committee that Wartanowicz was going to Rome on the conditional trust of the Propaganda Fide.247 When he arrived in Rome at the beginning of the year 1692, he made a “deal” during the investigation. He converted to Roman Catholic faith irrevocably. He was pardoned for his past abuse as part of the deal. He was also allowed to celebrate a holy mass in the “Egyptian” Saint Mary Church (Santa Maria Egiziaca) in Rome visited frequently by Armenians. His appointment as bishop was, however, considered null.248 Wartanowicz managed to acquire the appointment as an Armenian Bishop of Transylvania from the Armenian Apostolic Church. However, due to the strong opposition of the Catholics, Archbishop Hunanean and Father Bonesana could not fill this position. It is possible that, were Wartanowicz elected as a bishop, the catholicisation of the Armenians in Transylvania would have stopped. Being a high priest could have had a damaging effect on Oxendio’s mission: he would have prevented Oxendio to continue his pastoral work in Transylvania that he had started in 1685. After his conversion in 1692, Wartanowicz’s name appeared in several sources. The documents held in the Archives of the Apostolic Holy See provide data and news of his activities. He was employed by the Propaganda Fide as an expert in

245 APF Acta SC, Vol. 60. Fol. 78–81., Fol. 125–127.; APF SOCG, Vol. 507. Fol. 87–88., Fol. 89., Fol. 90., Fol. 91., Fol. 92., Fol. 93–94.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 129–132.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 69., Fol. 100., Fol. 129. 246 APF SOCG, Vol. 509. Fol. 112.; APF LDSC, Vol. 80. Fol. 3., Fol. 45.; Petrowicz, 1988. 93. 247 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 174.; Petrowicz, 1988. 92–93. 248 APF LDSC, Vol. 81. Fol. 89–90., Fol. 98.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 555.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

Armenian Church matters and issues concerning dogmas and he used the title of bishop and the address Monsignore until the end of his life.249 With the investigation of the Wartanowicz case, the last impediment was lifted and there was no more chance to fill the episcopacy in Transylvania vacant since Bishop Minas’s death with a clergyman of ill repute. This would not have happened without the determined action of Father Bonesana and Cardinal Cantelmi. They kept requesting the Propaganda Fide to finally make the decision and appoint a Uniate Armenian Bishop to Transylvania. If it did not happen, they argued, then, the Armenians in Transylvania might return to heresy, to the apostolic religion of their ancestors.250

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop Bishop Minas’s death made Oxendio’s position easier. The Uniate Armenian priest could now turn his full force against the “heretic” Armenian priests in Transylvania who were left without a leader. In his letter written a year later, he complained about them to the Propaganda Fide for not mixing wine with water at the end of the liturgy when administering the Eucharist. Therefore, he claimed that the Holy Communion was celebrated “incorrectly and in a heretic manner” although being an Armenian himself, Oxendio was well aware of the fact that the Eucharist had been celebrated for a thousand three hundred years that way in the Armenian Apostolic Church.251 The missionary also informed the missionary authorities of the Apostolic Holy See that due to Bishop Minas’s death a conflict arose among the Armenians regarding who would direct their church.252 Oxendio blamed the priest of the Armenian Apostolic rite for hindering the church-union and he mentioned seven men within the clergy who celebrated the liturgy incorrectly not just in the two wooden churches and the chapel but also in private homes. Oxendio Virziresco emphasised the fact that these seven men counted a lot because they reconverted to their “sinful” religion several of the Armenians who previously had taken up the Roman Catholic faith. Not counting Oxendio’s own relatives, only forty Armenians in Transylvania remained faithful to the Roman Catholic faith.253 Oxendio continued his missionary work and went on preaching, praying, and especially teaching. He was trying to win over the Armenians in Transylvania 249 250 251 252 253

Ališan, 1896a. 257.; Petrowicz, 1988. 93. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 70., Fol. 71–72. APF, SC FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 13. APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 90. APF, SC FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 13.

135

136

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

again for the Roman Catholic Church. Archbishop Hunanean and Father Bonesana provided him considerable financial and moral help for maintaining the school he had founded in Gheorgheni.254 The missionary work was done in Armenian but he celebrated the masses only in Latin because he believed using the Armenian language was inadequate because that would reconvert the Armenians to heresy.255 He celebrated the sacraments following the Latin rites and he administered the Holy Communion also as it was prescribed in the ceremonial of the Roman Catholic Church and mixed water into the mass wine. Many Armenians voiced their discontent about this.256 Due to Oxendio’s previous work, from the turn of 1688 and 1689, a part of the Armenians started to accept Catholicisation. The Armenian school in Gheorgheni played a considerable part in this as well as the fact that the Armenian Apostolic Church did not have a head of the calibre like Bishop Minas in Transylvania. Furthermore, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Archbishop Hunanean, and Theatine Father Francesco Bonesana, the Rector of the Armenian College in Lviv, did all they could to keep the Armenian Apostolic bishops appointed by the Armenian Catholicos from entering Transylvania. Father Bonesana sent a special report about this to the Apostolic Holy See. Apart from Bishop Wartanowicz, the Rector named Bishop Bernatowicz as those who did everything, they could to prevent the church-union of the Armenians in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Transylvania. He believed these two clergymen had been the infamous Archbishop Torosowicz’s followers and it needed the determined action of Nuncios Pallavicini and Cantelmi to stop them filling in the high priest offices of dubious legitimacy in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Moldavia, and Transylvania.257 In his letter written to Secretary Cybo on April 6th , 1689, Cantelmi related that on behalf of about two thousand Armenian in Szeklerland, laymen and the representatives of rich merchant families turned to Oxendio with a letter signed by them declaring that they were ready to accept the church-union with Rome in opposition to the majority of the local clergy. The Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw added that Oxendio sent the letter of the Armenian senior representatives to himself and Hunanean.258 Cantelmi drew the attention to the fact that these converted Armenians had no high priest and Oxendio led them in Szeklerland as a simple secular priest. He believed that a serious conflict could arise due to the lack of a bishop because Ēǰmiacin would definitely want to have a word in the appointment of the bishop. They also had to take into account the fact that the Armenian Catholicos 254 255 256 257 258

Ibid. Ibid. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 13.; Petrowicz, 1988. 87. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 69–70. APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 104.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

considered the Armenians who fled from Moldavia to Transylvania to fall under his own jurisdiction.259 Led by Armenian Priests Elia Mendrul (1631–1700) and Vardan Martinus Potoczky (1640–1702) a delegation of nine members was sent to Lviv where they personally put forward their request to Archbishop Vardan Hunanean and made a confession of faith with Rome in his presence on behalf of the Armenian community in Transylvania. The delegation declared that they were ready to sign the church-union agreement right away and they submitted in ecclesiastical matters to the jurisdiction of the Armenian Uniate Archbishop,260 and accepted the primacy of the Pope in Rome.261 Their confession of faith did not touch upon other issues such as the Filioque prayer, the Purgatory, the acceptance of the teaching decreed at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon or the legal status of the Armenian uniate clergy, etc. Archbishop Hunanean had only one objective: to extend the jurisdiction of the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric over the Uniate Armenians in Transylvania and their future episcopate.262 Following this, Oxendio as the omni-potent representative in Transylvania of the Armenian Archbishopric in Lviv, went to Warsaw to meet Nuncio Cantelmi. He related his missionary activities to the Nuncio who prepared a report on this for the Apostolic Holy See. In this report, Nuncio Cantelmi emphasised how much he appreciated, similarly to his predecessor and the Uniate archbishop, the missionary work Oxendio was doing in Transylvania. Nevertheless, he pointed out two difficulties. First, he doubted the sincere and definite intent for the church-union on the part of the Armenians. Referring to a missionary report from Armenia he acquired he let the Apostolic Holy See know that that Armenian Apostolic Church also intended to appoint his own candidate, Wartanowicz as a Bishop of Moldavia and to send him to Transylvania. Nuncio Cantelmi added that under these circumstances Oxendio alone would not be capable of persuading the Armenians to sign the church-union.263 The Nuncio was afraid that similarly to the ius eligendi applied in Poland, the Armenians in Transylvania might want to elect their own bishop

259 APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 103.; Petrowicz, 1988. 88. 260 APF SOCG, Vol. 510. Fol. 97–98.; APF LDSC, Vol. 78. Fol. 36–37., Fol. 37–38., Fol. 102.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 82–83., Fol. 124.; MA, MS. No. 1512. Fol. 557−560.; MA, MS. No. 3912. Fol. 344.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 251.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 34.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination).; GYÖKPK, A Plébánia története [History of the Parish]. I. Könyv [Volume], 1. Fejezet [Chapter].; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 120–121.; Bárány, 1888a. 67.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 186.; Kovács, 2006. 57.; Molnár, 2007. 26–27.; Molnár, 2009. 222. 261 APF SOCG, Vol. 506. Fol. 61., Fol. 63–64. 262 APF SOCG, Vol. 504. Fol. 104.; APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 282.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 220–221.; Petrowicz, 1988. 97. 263 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. fol. 221.

137

138

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

who would not necessarily want to sign the church-union with Rome. This person may come from the Armenian Apostolic clergy.264 Probably upon the Apostolic Nuncio’s request, Father and Rector Bonesana visited Gheorgheni in spring 1690 to check the missionary work there. (Later Oxendio himself sent a report, dated July 11st, 1690, on this to the Apostolic Holy See.) The Theatine Father and Rector pointed out that there were many heretics who used heretic missals. Regarding this he informed Oxendio that a Catholic missal translated from Latin into Armenian was published by Giacomo Moretti in Venice that was approved by the Apostolic Holy See. Rector Bonesana did all he could to be able to send a few copies to Transylvania as well. He believed it would be a great help to put a stop to heretic rites.265 Oxendio in his report brought up a new factor. He thought it would be of utmost importance to appoint a bishop in Transylvania to head the Armenians since the lack of a bishop might jeopardise the mission he initiated. Furthermore, in his view the Apostolic Holy See should excommunicate the above-mentioned Wartanowicz.266 He reported with great satisfaction on the large number of young Armenians who visited the school. He was pleased that Father and Rector Bonesana was accompanied by a young, twenty-two-year-old, Father Lazar Budachowicz (1668–1721), alumnus of the Armenian College in Lviv, who stayed with Oxendio and proved to be great help in Gheorgheni in teaching Armenian and Latin.267 The Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw tried to profit from the „interregnum” due to the vacancy at the episcopate and wrote a letter to the Armenians in Transylvania on March 8th , 1689 in which he encouraged the Armenians to elect a bishop based on ius eligendi. This would prevent the Armenian Apostolic Church to force their candidate on them. At the end of his letter, he warned the Armenians in Transylvania that only a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church would save their souls. He asked them to rebuke the “heretic” faith of their ancestors and enrich with their church-union with the Roman Catholic Church.268 Cantelmi praised Oxendio’s missionary work and mentioned that in Szeklerland the converted Armenians compared him to Saint Gregory the Illuminator, Patron Saint of the Armenian Apostolic Church.269 The Nuncio intervened at the Apostolic Holy See so that the issue of the bishop’s appointment could be resolved and recommended Oxendio.270

264 265 266 267 268 269 270

Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 82. APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 94–96., Fol. 114–115., Fol. 117–118. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 82–83. APF SOCG, Vol. 506. Fol. 61. Ibid. APF Acta SC, Vol. 59. Fol. 165–169.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 60. Fol. 14–19.; APF SOCG, Vol. 506. Fol. 63–64.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 133., Fol. 134–135.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

Nuncio Cantelmi sent Oxendio back to Transylvania with this letter. A month later Oxendio reported back that more and more people converted to Roman Catholic faith. He took it a great success that many even among the Armenian Apostolic clergy converted. It was mainly due to the fact that Oxendio preached and explained the rites, traditions and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church in Armenian their native language. Father Lazar Budachowicz was a great help in this.271 Rector Bonesana’s report dated September 4th , 1690 somewhat contradicted Oxendio’s letter. In the Rector’s view, there was great unrest in Transylvania because despite the conversions not everybody recognised Oxendio and a lot of them still followed Bishop Minas’s associates, the priests who followed the rites of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Father Bonesana also thought that many among the converted are not true Catholics. He sent to Transylvania his fellow Theatine Father, Sebastiano Maria Accorsi who taught at the Armenian College in Lviv, to assess the situation in Transylvania. Father Accorsi also thought the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was unstable since the Armenians accepted only their own converted priests as spiritual leaders. Nevertheless, Father Accorsi concluded that Father Oxendio and Father Lazar Budachowicz worked hard as missionaries and they should get larger authority and power so that they could accomplish and consolidate the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania.272 Father Accorsi did not put in words but implied that a Uniate Armenian bishop should be sent to Transylvania. Archbishop Hunanean also made this very clear in his letter written in November. The archbishop reported that one of Oxendio’s ex-students, Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka studied in Rome at Urbanian College. He also added that he ordained four young Armenian priests and sent them to Gheorgheni in Szeklerland to help Oxendio’s work.273 He pointed out that the majority of the Armenians were not yet Catholic except the ones who lived close to Oxendio. Hunanean thought most of the Armenians fools and stupid for not accepting Catholic faith that offers the only true salvation. The issue of appointing a bishop thus remained on the agenda. In spring 1690, Father and Rector Bonesana transferred to the Apostolic Holy See, the request made by the Armenians of Gheorgheni so as to help Oxendio with his appointment as a bishop.274 Two months later Father Accorsi reported to the Propaganda Fide that the best solution for the Armenian refugees from Moldavia who lived in Transylvania would be the appointment of a bishop. Nuncio Cantelmi, Archbishop 271 272 273 274

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 84. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 86., Fol. 94. ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 124.

139

140

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Hunanean and Bonesana, by then Bishop of Caiazzo in Italy gave full support to this.275 Bishop Bonesana before resigning made it clear to the Propaganda Fide that Oxendio should be ordained bishop. He also requested regular remuneration for the Armenian priest and he himself gave him fifty scudos.276 Finally, Bishop Bonesana came up with the suggestion that the jurisdiction of Oxendio’s future (and then potential) episcopate should be extended not only to Szeklerland but the entire Transylvania since Catholic Hungarians did not have a high priest either. The Rector about to resign referred to what his successor, Father Accorsi heard that the Armenians living in Moldavia and Wallachia did not have a Uniate bishop either. Therefore, he suggested Oxendio should be sent among them on mission as a Uniate bishop.277 A week later Bishop Bonesana sent a letter to the Propaganda Fide already from Warsaw and asked the cardinals to give their support to Oxendio’s candidacy for the bishop’s position and not to allow the heretic Wartanowicz to sit on the seat of the deceased Bishop Minas.278 In the context of the church-union affair of the Armenians in Transylvania, we cannot disregard the political changes in the Transylvanian Principality in the 1680s. The Imperial generals stationed their troops within the Principality during winter since the middle of the 1680s. In 1687 Prince Michael Apafi I managed to conclude a good deal with Charles V (1643−1690), Duke of Lorraine and Bar, the Imperial Field Marshall. The Field Marshall promised on behalf of the Viennese court that they respected the independence of the Principality in return for an indemnity of 750,000 florins and feeding the army. Vienna, however, did not keep itself to the agreement. In 1688 General Antonio Caraffa (1642–1693), appointed as royal commissioner of Transylvania, forced the members of the Transylvanian diet to swear an oath of loyalty. The hesitation on the part of the Transylvanians was justified by the fact that the castles at the periphery of the Great Hungarian Plain (Alföld) were still occupied by Ottoman military. In 1690, it looked as if the Viennese court cannot gain a foothold in Transylvania. After the death of Prince Michael Apafi I, Emmerich (Imre) Thököly (1657–1705) was elected as a Prince of Transylvania. The Viennese court issued the Diploma Leopoldinum that reinstated the former laws of the Principality, reconfirmed the privileges of the nobility and the towns, and guaranteed free religious practice for the four recognised confessions. The tax Transylvania was supposed to pay set in peace to 50,000 florins per year while in war to 400.000 florins. One important thing, however, was missing: the confirmation of appointment of the young Prince Michael Apafi. Because the prince was still under age the Viennese court charged the Governorhip of Transylvania 275 276 277 278

Ibid. Fol. 140. Ibid. Fol. 146. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 148.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

of twelve Councellors among whom three had to be Roman Catholic, with the Governor at its head, to administer Transylvania. On December 1st, 1691, Emperor and King Leopold I reformulated the Diploma with conditions less favourable to Transylvania. The new version increased the court’s influence. The Governorship of Transylvania was set up in Sibiu in 1691 while the Transylvanian Court Chancellery of Vienna was established in Vienna in 1693.279 The political changes that took place or were under-way made an impact on the issue of the Armenian Uniate Bishopric in Transylvania. Vienna was also included in the talks and became a more important factor than Lviv. The general session of the Propaganda Fide held on June 27th , 1689 received Nuncio Cantelmi’s information on the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and in Lviv. After the discussion regarding the affair of the Armenians in Transylvania, the Propaganda Fide decided to take into consideration the political status of the Transylvanian Principality and the growing military and political influence of the Habsburgs in Transylvania. They thought they should contact Francesco Buonvisi (1626–1700), Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, Titular Archbishop of Thessaloniki, who was in close touch with the Viennese court. The Propaganda Fide updated him upon Oxendio Virziresco’s activities, his candidacy for the bishop’s position and the future sphere of ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the episcopate to be.280 As a result, Secretary Cybo wrote a letter to Francesco Buonvisi, Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, and asked him to contact the Viennese court since in the Secretary’s view, Transylvania was already under the rule of Emperor and King Leopold I.281 The Secretary let Nuncio Cantelmi know of this step.282 Nuncio Buonvisi was aware of the multi-faceted problems of the Armenian church-union and could see that in the near future there could be a clash of interests among Vienna, Warsaw, and Lviv regarding the catholicisation of the Armenians in Transylvania. Nuncio Buonvisi did as he was asked by Secretary Cybo and contacted the Viennese court.283 When the Armenian clergy in Transylvania received Nuncio Cantelmi’s letter from Oxendio, they rejected the appointment of Wartanowicz as an Armenian Apostolic Bishop in Transylvania. The special committee of the Propaganda Fide concerned themselves with some of the letters Nuncio Cantelmi wrote in August 1689.284 These letters were about the Armenian Uniate bishop who would be elected

279 ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 76–78.; Bethlen, 1860. 121–122. 153.; Bíró, 1925. 105–109.; Apor, 1978. 25. 118–119.; Cserei, 1983. 246–247. 292–293.; R. Várkonyi, 1986. 874–893.; Trócsányi, 1988. 196–212.; Kristó–Barta–Gergely, 2002. 309–310., Tóth, 2017. 499. 280 APF Acta SC, Vol. 59. Fol. 165–168., Fol. 169.; Petrowicz, 1988. 89. 281 APF LDSC, Vol. 78. Fol. 36–37. 282 Ibid. Fol. 37–38. 283 Ibid. Fol. 40. 284 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 140.

141

142

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

or sent to head the Armenians in Transylvania although concrete recommendations as to who that person might be were not put forward then yet.285 The Armenians made an attempt to elect a bishop among themselves. In this case, however, it was not sure whether a Uniate clergyman would sit on the episcopal seat. The Armenians insisted on their right to elect their own bishop. In their letter written to the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, they expressed their view that it would be outrageous if this old tradition could not live on in their community. Therefore, they asked the Apostolic Nuncio to approve their election of their bishop.286 Nuncio Cantelmi in the meantime informed the Apostolic Holy See that he received a letter signed by fourteen (out of which two were Uniate priests) Armenians in Transylvania. On behalf of the community, they expressed their request to appoint Oxendio as their bishop. To justify their recommendation, they, first mentioned his piety and faith, then the school he founded in Gheorgheni for the young ones and also the fact that he acted as an apostolic administrator in Szeklerland since 1687.287 However, Oxendio was not the only candidate. Nuncio Cantelmi referred to it in his later report that Oxendio had rivals such as Bishop Nersesowicz, the former Coadjutor to the Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv who spread the rumour that in fact Oxendio was loyal to the Armenian heretic Catholicos and therefore he was not a true Catholic.288 This obviously proved to be false accusation which Nuncio Cantelmi saw through, therefore, he did not take Bishop Nersesowicz’s charges seriously. Despite their partial church-union, the Armenians were not aware at the time how the Roman Catholic tradition of electing and ordaining a bishop worked and their ignorance could have met with the disapproval on the part of the local Roman Catholic clergy. In any case, the Armenians in Transylvania turned to Pope Innocent XI and requested him to ordain a bishop for them. They found Oxendio as the most suitable person for this.289 Ten Armenians signed the letter on behalf of the community among who we can find the names of Uniate Armenian priests Elia Mendrul and Vardan Martinus Potoczky.290 The Armenians sent their request to the Propaganda Fide and the Nuncio in Warsaw written both in Armenian and Latin.291 The letter written to the Pope is little different. Here the Armenians justified their request

285 286 287 288 289 290 291

APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 628–629., Fol. 630–631.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 94.; Tóth, 2004. 852. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 631. Ibid. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 636.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 15. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 644–645. Ibid. Fol. 630. Ibid. Fol. 647–648.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

by explaining that all of them converted to the Roman Catholic faith thanks to Oxendio’s missionary activities.292 The church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania in 1689 proved to be an imperfect church-union, the details of which remained unclear. Their confession of Catholic faith in the presence of Archbishop Hunanean was full of unsolved issues since the documents regarding the church-union were limited only to the proclamation of the union, the acceptance of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Lviv and the papal primacy. On the other hand, the church-union did not clarify the attitude of the Armenians in Transylvania who signed the union agreement regarding Eucharist, the Filioque procedit Creed (ew błxi yOrdwoyn), the existence of Purgatory (K’awarann), the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, the right way of singing the Trisagium (Trisagion) hymn, the language of liturgy, the missals, the calendar or the legal and marital status of the uniate priests.293 In any case, the interpretation of the church-union, as we shall see in the next chapters, brought further conflicts and problems. From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, signing a church-union with the Armenians in Transylvania was driven by the desire to recreate the original ecumenical unity of the church. The Apostolic Holy See was also of the view that with the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania the unity in faith in the Latin and Armenian churches that had been prevalent until the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries during the pontificates of Pope Sylvester I (314–335) and Saint Gregory the Illuminator (287–325), Apostle and First Catholicos of the Armenians, could be restored soon. According to the Roman Catholic Church, the undeserving successors of the Armenian Apostle were the reason why the Armenian Apostolic Church distanced itself from the then ecumenical Orthodoxy and stepped on the path of Monophysite heresy and schismatism.294 Therefore Rome considered it an important milestone that, after the church-union of the Armenians in Poland, the Armenians in Transylvania would do the same. It was considered an important strategic “bridge head” towards a future church-union of the Armenian Apostolic Church with the Roman Catholic Church. The standpoint was spearheaded within the Roman Catholic Church the most markedly by the Jesuits.295 The Jesuits did not even consider the Armenians in Transylvania schismatic or Monophysite but simply as Christians practicing old and outdated rites.296 Cantelmi, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, tried to explain the situation in his letter dated October 21st , 1689. He expressed his support of the Armenians’ church-union 292 293 294 295 296

Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 613., Fol. 628–629., Fol. 644., Fol. 645. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 647–648. Periş, 1998. 128. 144.; Shore, 2007. 76. ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 176. Pag. 106.; ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 177. Pag. 79.; Shore, 2007. 76.

143

144

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

in Transylvania. He pointed out the hard and selfless work Oxendio had done for the church-union and named him as a possible candidate. Oxendio Virziresco as an Apostolic Vicar (vicarius apostolicus, vicario apostolico, ar.ak’elakan ew araǰnordakan tełapah) led the pastoral work of the Uniate Armenians in Transylvania.297 At the end of his letter, Nuncio Cantelmi remembered Pope Innocent XI and assured the Armenians that his successor, Pope Alexander VIII would also bear in mind the Armenians’ plight and the appointment and ordination of their bishop.298 The Armenians in Transylvania and their church-union would thus be reconfirmed. Nuncio Cantelmi informed Cardinal Altieri, the Prefect of the Propaganda Fide about this from Warsaw on November 8th , 1689. He enclosed copies of his correspondence with the representatives of the Armenian community in Transylvania. Nuncio Cantelmi praised Oxendio for his preparedness in theology, for his true Catholic faith and leadership skills adding that he could not imagine any other candidate in Transylvania to solve this issue. On the other hand, he added that Oxendio’s person might induce discord because Oxendio as a coadjutor to the archbishop had confronted the Armenians and the Theatines several times.299 If the Propaganda Fide wanted to resolve the issue of establishing an episcopate upon the request of the Armenians in Transylvania, they should weigh Oxendio’s candidacy who could direct the future Uniate Armenian episcopate with the help of the Theatine fathers in Lviv. Nuncio Cantelmi also recommended caution. In his view, the Armenian episcopate in Transylvania had to become independent from the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv to avoid political conflicts between the Apostolic Holy See, the Viennese court and the Hungarian clergy.300 The Propaganda Fide reached a decision on this at their session held on January 23rd , 1690 which they submitted for opinion to Cardinal Giulio Spínola (1612–1691), former Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, Archbishop of Lucca, as well as to Cardinal Michál Stefan Radziejowski (1645–1705), Archbishop of Gniezno, Primate of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.301 Three weeks later, on February 14th , 1690 the cardinals prepared a very long report on the status of the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania in which they approved Oxendio’s episcopal candidacy. However, they did not make a decision but asked for a new investigation.302 Therefore, before the final decision, Secretary Cybo meant to double-check whether it was necessary to establish a Uniate Armenian episcopate in Transylvania and if it

297 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 142. 298 APF SOCG, Vol. 506. Fol. 64. 299 APF Acta SC, Vol. 60. Fol. 14–19.; APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 610–612., Fol. 651.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 129–132. 300 APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 628. 301 APF Acta SC, Vol. 60. Fol. 19.; Petrowicz, 1988. 91. 302 APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 609.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

would not clash with the interest of the local Catholic Church. The Secretary agreed with the Nuncio’s previous suggestion that the future Armenian episcopate should not depend, on any conditions, on either the Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv or the Armenian Catholicos.303 The Secretary’s view regarding the assessment of the dependency on the Armenian Catholicos must have been based on fake rumours. The Propaganda Fide had previously trusted the news received from missionary reports from Armenia that Armenian Catholicos Eliazar I had converted to Roman Catholic faith. This must have been a misinterpretation since the Armenian Apostolic Church was not happy with attempts made for a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church, therefore it was highly unlikely that the Armenian Patriarch would have accepted the Catholicisation. On the contrary, he persecuted Catholic missionaries and converted Armenians with fire and sword.304 The cardinals of the Propaganda Fide could not reach a decision. Nuncio Cantelmi was staying at the Apostolic Holy See and received the cardinal title from Pope Alexander VIII around this time. He updated the cardinals regarding the matters of the Armenian Unaite Church in Transylvania to speed up the decision-making process. He also recommended them to appoint and ordain Oxendio Virziresco as the bishop of the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania.305 On February 14th , 1690 Secretary Cybo sent a letter to Oxendio to Transylvania in which he informed him that at the session of the Propaganda Fide his work was mentioned with great praise. At the same time, he asked him as a potential candidate for the episcopacy to share his experiences and impressions one more time with the leadership of Propaganda Fide regarding the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania.306 In 1689 and 1690, Nuncio Cantelmi was almost constantly on the move between Lviv, Vienna and Warsaw having diplomatic discussions about the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and the future Armenian Uniate episcopate. The special committee of the Propaganda Fide had a session on May 29th , 1690 where the Armenian Uniate Episcopate in Transylvania was on the agenda. The cardinals stated that Apostolic Vicar Oxendio was subordinated in all matters to the Propaganda Fide and not to Lviv. The special committee allocated a salary of a hundred scudos for him. They also decided that Rector Bonesana and his right-hand man, the Theatine Father Accorsi would hand over the Armenian missions they held in Szeklerland to Oxendio.307 Finally they repeated that the Propaganda Fide exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Armenian episcopate in Transylvania 303 304 305 306 307

APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 610., Fol. 628.; APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 123. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 22. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 611.; APF LDSC, Fol. 79. Fol. 80–81. APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 82. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 617.; Petrowicz, 1988. 94.

145

146

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

and the Armenian Archbishopric of Lviv had no say in it.308 With this decision, the Armenians of Transylvania were detached from the Uniate Armenian Archbishopric in Lviv regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Following this, Secretary Cybo instructed Father Bonesana on June 3rd , 1690 to inform Archbishop Hunanean of the decision made by the Propaganda Fide.309 The committee also recommended to be appointed Oxendio only as a Titular Bishop not to clash with the interest of the Hungarian Catholic clergy since there was a separate Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania that had not been filled in for a long time. The court, according to their repopulation plan, was meaning to appoint suitable clergymen to the dioceses that had been without a high priest for long and Transylvania could not have been an exception.310 In appointing Oxendio one of the factors might have been that as a spiritual leader in Transylvania he was expected to bring together the Catholics in Transylvania or more precisely in Szeklerland who were in a difficult situation. Therefore, he was the pastor in Transylvania not only for the Armenians but as a Catholic bishop it was his duty to lead all Roman Catholics in Transylvania since at the time officially there was no Roman Catholic Bishop yet.311 This situation in Transylvania, however, foreshadowed future problems regarding jurisdiction. Pope Alexander VIII issued two papal briefs on October 2nd and 3rd , 1690, respectively in which he appointed Oxendio as Titular Bishop of Aladia (Kilallach, Ireland) and authorised him as an Apostolic Vicar and missionary to bring his missionary activities initiated in 1685 to fruition.312 Of course, the Pope made sure he was not appointed as a Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Transylvania. The Apostolic Holy See weighed the situation of the Catholics in Transylvania. The manner in which Oxendio was appointed as a bishop with a titular episcopacy can be interpreted in the context of the controversies that had lasted for several decades regarding appointing the Bishop of Transylvania. Furthermore, the Propaganda Fide was well aware that, despite the fact that the influence of the Viennese court was growing, the position of the Protestants in Transylvania was still solid, and they could easily expel the Uniate bishop referring to the fact that the Diploma Leopoldinum mentioned an Episcopal Vicar only and did not say anything about a Catholic Episcopate. Oxendio must have been informed that he had to keep himself

308 309 310 311

APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 612−613. APF LDSC, Vol. 79. Fol. 134–135. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 617. ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 149. Fol. 76.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 75.; HC, 1952. 105.; Fraknói, 1896. 388.; Temesváry, 1913–1914. 52–57. 108–109.; Jakab, 1944. 16–17.; Galla, 2005. 264–267.; Galla, 2010. 144. 312 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 252.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 34.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination.); ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 29. Pag. 346.; HC, 1952. 79.

The Issues of the Church-Union and Oxendio Virziresco’s Appointment as a Bishop

to some unwritten laws after his appointment not to be sent away from Transylvania: e.g. not to show that he was subordinated to Rome, to walk in simple clothes as a priest or monk, to exercise spiritual jurisdiction only and restrain in acquiring estates, etc. This was a little similar to Kázmér Damokos OFM (1606–1678)’s case. Due to the ius supremi patronatus debates that lasted for several decades, in 1668 Casimir Damokos was appointed as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Transylvania but “only” as the Titular Bishop of Coronea who acted as a bishop incognito. Therefore, Damokos was ordained as a bishop in secret while Oxendio’s ordination was celebrated officially a few months after his appointment.313 Secretary Cybo, in his letter written to Rector Bonesana, explained that the two briefs Pope Alexander VIII issued made it possible to appoint and ordain Oxendio and he could fulfil his vocation in Transylvania in this capacity.314 In his response, Father Bonesana pointed out the problems around the calendar. The Armenians in Transylvania were still using the old Armenian calendar and celebrated Christmas on the day of Epiphany. He also stated that the decrees of the Uniate Council of Lviv in 1689 should be introduced in Transylvania.315 He referred to the letter written by Andrea Santacroce (1655–1712), Apostolic Nuncio of Warsaw dated 2nd of May, 1691 where it was suggested that Oxendio should do missionary work outside of Transylvania too, in Moldavia and Wallachia to accomplish the church-union of the Armenian communities living there and also to include them into a future bigger ecclesiastical diocese. The head of that diocese would naturally be Oxendio himself.316 Oxendio was ordained only ten months after his appointment on July 31st , 1691 in the Armenian Cathedral of the Assumption of the Saint Mary in Lviv according to the Latin and Armenian rites.317 The ordination was celebrated by Archbishop

313 In late 1680s, similar to Bishop Damokos, István Kada/Káda (1617–1695) was appointed and ordained by the Apostolic Holy See on purpose as a Titular Bishop of Augustopolis in Phrygia to govern spiritually the Transylvanian Roman Catholics incognito. At tha same time, due to the strong resistance of the Protestants, he was not able to come into Transylvania. APF Acta SC, Vol. 34. Fol. 253–254.; APF SOCG, Vol. 510. Fol. 94., Fol. 97., Fol. 101.; APF LDSC, Vol. 80. Fol. 64.; GYFL, I/1a. 6. p.; GYFL, I/4. Vol. 3. Fol. 247.; Lukácsy, 1859. 70.; Fraknói, 1896. 388.; Bíró–Boros, 1941. 59–62.; Jakab, 1944. 13–14.; Petrowicz, 1988. 94–95.; Tóth, 1998a. 68–69.; Galla, 2005. 189–256. 314 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 140. 315 APF SOCG, Vol. 510. Fol. 95. 316 Ibid. Fol. 96. 317 APF Acta SC, Vol. 61. Fol. 84–87.; APF SOCG, Vol. 509. Fol. 33.; APF LDSC, Vol. 80. Fol. 4., Fol. 13–14., Fol. 65., Fol. 74–75., Fol. 86–87.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 146.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137., Fol. 173.; PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 273/2.; Gopcsa, 1895. 379.; Ališan, 1896a, 128.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 118.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 187.; Petrowicz, 1988. 95.; Gazdovits, 2006. 276.

147

148

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Hunanean himself. Then the newly ordained bishop left for Transylvania where the Propaganda Fide assigned Gheorgheni as his temporary seat.318 In this context the question arises: what reactions did Oxendio’s appointment and ordination induce in Lviv especially since the jurisdiction over the Armenians of Transylvania had been taken from the Uniate archbishopric? The Uniate archbishop must have felt disappointed by this decision of the Propaganda Fide. After being ordained, Oxendio set about doing the real work and went to see the Armenian communities trying to win them over to the Roman Catholic faith. Based upon the decision of the Propaganda Fide, he wanted to include under his jurisdiction the converted communities as well.319 This meant that as a result of the decision made by the special committee of the Propaganda Fide the converted communities would be directly subordinated in ecclesiastical matters to Rome.320

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696) After Prince Michael Apafi I died in 1690, Emperor and King Leopold I settled Transylvania’s political status in the Diploma Leopoldinum. He turned the Principality into Governorship of Transylvania and subordinated it directly to the Viennese court. In confessional matters he kept the four accepted religions but was also trying to improve the situation for the Roman Catholics in Transylvania. The Transylvanian Law Codex called in Latin Approbatae Constitutiones of 1653 did not allow a Roman Catholic Episcopate to operate within the territory of the Principality. Catholic estates, however, wanted to achieve at the court that a resident bishop would be sent to Transylvania.321 The court and the Hungarian Catholic clergy did not consider Oxendio a bishop in Transylvania since he was granted a titular bishop title “only”. The title of a titular bishop was not unheard of in Transylvania since in previous decades secretly ordained titular bishops had been sent there. They operated as simple monks so that Protestants would not suspect them. Due to the Declaration of Făgăraş in 1688 and the Diploma Leopoldinum promulgated in 1690, the Transylvanian Principality went under the political influence of the Habsburg Monarchy. This political change had an impact on the careful balance of the many-confessional principality. Previously Transylvania enjoyed a confessional equilibrium which the changes disrupted.322 With the growing influ318 319 320 321 322

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 261.; Bárány, 1888b. 101. Nilles, 1885. 918–919. 921. APF SOCG, Vol. 512. Fol. 180.; APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 617.; Petrowicz, 1988. 95. Varga J., 1991. 458. 463–465. R. Várkonyi, 1986. 885.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

ence of the Habsburgs, radical changes occurred the Roman Catholic Church was strengthened, the Orthodox episcopate in Transylvania left the Eastern Church and the Uniate church was established.323 It is well-known that at the death of Prince Michael Apafi I, the Protestants were in majority and Transylvania was known as a Protestant principality. During the times of economic consolidation and relative religious tolerance typical for the Prince Apafi I rule, Catholics could also get reinforced. The idea to reinstate the episcopate in Transylvania that had been vacant for some time re-surfaced. An unspoken compromise was reached between the Protestants and the strengthening Catholics in Transylvania during this period. Protestants in Transylvania offered 15,000 Florins for Catholic schools and churches while Catholics withdrew their legal suits to reclaim their church estates.324 The Viennese Court, however, intended to reduce the political influence the Protestants had and to establish the Roman Catholic faith as the state religion. Those loyal to Catholicism knew that most Transylvanians, the middle stratum as well as peasantry, were either Orthodox or Protestant. They also realised that it was almost impossible to convert Protestants in Transylvania to Catholicism. In confessional matters there was a tug-of-war between the Catholic and the Protestant interest groups since both realised that the Orthodox Romanian population tipped the scale. The Jesuit fathers who arrived with the imperial troops in 1687 and 1688 called the attention of the court and the Roman Catholic Church to this factor already then. It seemed decisive which of them would win over the Orthodox Romanians for themselves first. The Catholics reacted faster. Their motive was clear: they meant to tie the Romanians in Transylvania to the Habsburg Monarchy through a church-union with the Roman Catholic Church. They did not concern themselves with the Armenians who had a church-union in 1689 because they were not as big a group as the Romanians. Oxendio, the newly appointed bishop started his activities as a high priest in Transylvania under such circumstances. Despite the changes in Szeklerland where the population was mostly Catholic, Oxendio was the only Roman Catholic high priest who was spiritually suitable to lead the people. The case of the Armenian uniates, however, raised the issue of ecclesiastic jurisdiction since the Roman Catholic Episcopate of Transylvania that was being rebuilt from the middle of the 1690s in Alba Iulia intended to keep the jurisdiction and the influence over all the believers of the Roman Catholic faith.325 Therefore, they considered the Uniate Armenian Church under their ecclesiastical jurisdiction.326 323 324 325 326

Kosáry, 1996. 91–92. R. Várkonyi, 1986. 886.; Oborni, 2018. 360−367. Illia, 1730. 64–72.; Nilles, 1885. 919–922.; Shore, 2007. 76. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 219.

149

150

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

They did not consider the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania complete and often accused the Armenians of heresy and schismatism, at times with good reason, at other times for no reason. One of these charges was that some members of the Uniate Armenian clergy lived in marriage. Oxendio when visiting the Armenian communities between 1690 and 1692 also saw that converted Armenian priests were married. The bishop did not know what to do with them, therefore, he turned to the Propaganda Fide.327 At the same time, the Armenian married priests also wrote to the Propaganda Fide and requested that they could continue to remain both priests and married.328 Their case was discussed at a session held on October 8th, 1691. The Propaganda Fide made the following decision based on the suggestion of the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and Rector Francesco Bonesana: they allowed the Armenian priests to continue their pastoral work as married priests.329 They explained that the marriages that had taken place before the Uniate Armenian priests were ordained were approved by the Council of Lviv in 1689.330 This issue was off the agenda for six years. Oxendio as the spiritual leader of the Armenians intended to enlarge the economic privileges of the Armenians because, in his view, this was how they could be kept within the church-union. The bishop considered the privileges offered by Michael Apafi I to the Armenians in 1680 insufficient and outdated. The Protestant elite in Transylvania, however, raised their eyebrows to this, for example Miklós Bethlen, Chancellor of Transylvania who was trying to turn the Uniate Catholic Armenians against the Protestant (Lutheran) Saxon communities in Bistriţa in 1692. Chancellor Bethlen tried to persuade the Armenians to return to the Eastern Apostolic faith of their ancestors in return for his help in convincing the Viennese court to enlarge the commercial privileges they received in 1680.331 The target of the attack was Oxendio himself.332 A part of the Armenians gave in the pressure because they did not like Oxendio’s strict church policy and they thought the union agreement they signed in 1689 did not bring them any privileges. Therefore, many among them rebuked the church-union and left Transylvania.333 Oxendio had to deal with other difficulties as well. He did not regularly receive the salary of a hundred scudos from the Apostolic Holy See that was accorded to him at his appointment. Therefore, it was almost impossible for him to accomplish all his tasks as a bishop since he had no other source of income. The Apostolic

327 328 329 330 331 332 333

APF SOCG, Vol. 512. Fol. 180.; Kovács − Kovács, 2002. 14. 75−80. APF SOCG, Vol. 510. Fol. 97–98. APF Acta SC, Vol. 61. Fol. 84–87. Ibid. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 219. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 233.; Lukácsy, 1859. 70. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 267–268.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

Nuncio in Vienna reported to the Propaganda Fide on this in March 1692. He asked the Apostolic Holy See to regularly send the amount to the Bishop, otherwise his mission was at risk.334 This was also confirmed by Rector Accorsi who also added in his report that despite the great difficulties Oxendio had been doing a great job among the Armenians in Transylvania. The Rector mentioned also that the Tartars often had incursions into Transylvania and at one time, Oxendio was imprisoned for a short time but then was released because he talked their language well.335 The Propaganda Fide intended to solve the problem as much as they could. Cardinal Altieri, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide ordered to send two hundred scudos to Oxendio without delay since he had not received his remuneration for the previous year.336 In the end Oxendio was sent a hundred and fifty scudos due to some bureaucratic conundrum.337 In his report, Father Accorsi pointed out that in the summer of 1692 after discussions with the Apostolic Holy See he sent Theatine Father Giuseppe Bonalini CR (1650–1703) who spoke excellent Armenian and Turkish to join Oxendio as his Vicar. He arrived in Gheorgheni in September 1692 after a lot of hardships.338 From here he went to Bistriţa to help the Armenian bishop resolve conflicts there.339 Based on information received from Father Bonalini, Accorsi mentioned in his report that the majority of Armenians in Bistriţa, especially the ones who were refugees from Podolia before settling down in Transylvania, did not speak in Armenian but in Turkish.340 Therefore it was no wonder that the Saxons called them Turks. They accused them of being in cahoots with the Tartars when they raided the area. The Armenians were spared by the Tartars allegedly because they spoke their language so well. Furthermore, the Armenians who were from Moldavia were mostly merchants and craftsmen who used Turkish as a mediator language when doing business. Another difficulty arose in the situation of the Uniate Armenians in Transylvania, as was explained by Oxendio and his assistants, that Vardan Martinus Potoczky and Astwacatur Nigošean, Armenian monks (vardapets) from Bistriţa, at the possible instigation of the authorities, were gathering Armenians around them and preached

334 335 336 337

Ibid. Fol. 215. Ibid. Fol. 219. APF SOCG, Vol. 512. Fol. 186.; LDSC, Vol. 81. Fol. 18., Fol. 153–154.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 233. APF SOCG, Vol. 512. Fol. 179. Fol. 181. Fol. 183.; APF LDSC, Vol. 81. Fol. 108.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 235., Fol. 253.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 322. 338 APF LDSC, Vol. 80. Fol. 143., Fol. 155.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265.; APF SC, FMPR. Vol. 2. Fol. 386.; AGT CL, Portfolio 2. (Unnumbered folio.); Welikyj, 1976. 79–80.; Petrowicz, 1988. 96. 339 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265. 340 APF Acta SC, Vol. 62. Fol. 125–128.; APF LDSC, Vol. 81. Fol. 215–216.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 261., Fol. 262., Fol. 263.

151

152

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

them in Armenian against the church-union agreement at the turn of 1691 and 1692.341 Oxendio disapproved of both Vardan and Astwacatur vardapets’ sermons and considered them heretic and dangerous for the community. The bishop made a serious mistake. He thought they should not do missionary work using the language of the people but Latin instead since a true Christian would use this language and not the heretic Armenian. In his view, Armenians in the past left the only right path to salvation because they gave up the holy Latin language. However, except for Oxendio, Father Bonalini and a few Uniate Armenian priests, no one understood Latin. Oxendio wanted to promote Latin among people whose tradition had been for more than a thousand years the use of the vernacular as the language of liturgy.342 Vardapets Vardan’s and Astwacatur’s sermons were a headache for Oxendio and his aids. The situation was further complicated by the fact that three years before Vardan and Astwacatur had strongly supported Oxendio’s appointment as a bishop.343 According to Father Bonalini, Oxendio asked for help from the imperial troops to arrest Vardan and his followers. Priests Vardan and Astwacatur and several Armenian families successfully resisted the authoritis. At the intervention of Prince Michael Apafi II, Vardan and his followers moved to the prince’s estate in Elisabethopolis.344 Most probably Oxendio considered it a failure that he did not manage to win over that community to the Roman Catholic faith. This was reinforced by the fact that General Federico Veterani (1643−1695) who had been in excellent relationship with Oxendio due to external pressure had to protect the Armenians who rebuked the church-union. He even assigned military escort for them so that their move to Elisabethopolis would take place without any incidents.345 With his complaint Oxendio turned first to Chancellor Miklós Bethlen (1642−1716), then the Governorship of Transylvania and later to the Transylvanian diet accusing a lot of Armenians with disobedience when they did not recognise his mission or himself as their bishop.346 Bethlen set up a committee headed by Péter Alvinczi (1639−1701), Judge of Transylvania. The other members were from the four accepted religions. He asked the committee to find out what religion the Armenians in Elisabethopolis and Bistriţa followed. Unfortunately, the work of the committee did not yield any concrete

341 342 343 344

APF SOCG, Vol. 512. Fol. 181.; APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 100., Fol. 110–111., Fol. 119. APF LDSC, Vol. 81. Fol. 130–131. APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 644–645., Fol. 647–648. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265.; AAV ANVienna, Vol. 196. Fol. 148.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 83.; Bethlen, 1860. 160.; Szirtes, 2018. 375. 345 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 84. 346 PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 273/4.2.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 137.; Bethlen, 1860. 217.; Trócsányi, 1988. 264.; Pál, 2007. 78.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

results.347 The authorities did not want to deal with Oxendio’s complaint referring to free religious practice. The Protestant majority disapproved that a Catholic Armenian bishop was trying to do justice. In their view, the bishop had authority in ecclesiastical matters only and not in secular ones.348 Oxendio wrote a letter of complaint to the Governorship of Transylvania in which he stated that in matters of the Armenians in Transylvania only he had the right to act as a bishop. He asked for the help of the governor so that he could exercise his jurisdiction over the unsatisfied Armenians.349 Governor György Bánffy (1660–1708) in his reply promised him that he would put this matter on the agenda at the following diet. However, nothing came out of it350 although the governor appointed two noblemen in Transylvania, Miklós Thorma and János Balogh to find out what ecclesiastical status the Armenians in Bistriţa and in Transylvania had, what religious faith they followed and what relationship they had with the local Saxons. The governor ordered them to prepare a written report of their investigation.351 He instructed them to find out whether the Armenians in Transylvania in general were part of the four accepted religions. If so then their affair would be judged accordingly.352 The report was ready on June 30th, 1692. However, it was not written by the two gentlemen, Miklós Thorma or János Balogh because they asked Bishop Oxendio to do this for them. Oxendio delegated this task to Uniate priests Andrea Alacz and Yovhannēs Naxšun as well as the Armenians in Transylvania.353 This document was, in fact, a proof of their profession of faith. In the introduction, the Armenians in Transylvania referred ro an agreement signed in Gheorgheni probably at the end of the 1680s by the Armenians and the then simple missionary Oxendio. The agreement allowed the Armenians to keep some of their old rites and traditions such as their customs at Lent, the holidays, church hymns, their old calendar or wearing clerical robes during liturgy, etc.354 In this document in question that did not survive, the practical questions of the church-union may have been clarified. However, Oxendio’s reports sent to the Apostolic Holy See never mentioned this document or the agreement. In light of this alleged document, we could say that the Armenians in Transylvania had a second profession of Catholic faith after 1689.

347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354

PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 274/4.1.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. 84. p. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265. PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 274/ 8.3. PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 274/ 8.3.; Szilágyi, 1898. 10. 18. 57. 65. 125. PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 274/ 8.4. PL AEV, SPSZ. No. 274/8.4.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 96. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 77. Ibid.

153

154

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

This professon of faith proved that the Armenians of Transylvania were irrevocably members of the Roman Catholic Church and their rites followed those of the Catholic Church. The Armenians in Transylvania, as opposed to their profession of faith in Lviv in 1689, covered all the important issues of the church-union. They recognised the seven sacraments, the teachings of the great ecclesiastical councils, the teachings of Saint Cyril (412–444), Patriarch of Alexandria and Pope Leo I, the Great (440–461) regarding the two natures of Jesus Christ as well as the primacy of the Pope in Rome, etc.355 There was, however, a contradiction in the document, the Armenian calendar which the Armenians insisted on according to the agreement of Gheorgheni although Oxendio always fiercely opposed its use.356 This document, however, said nothing of the legal and ecclesiatic status of Uniate priests. The profession of faith written in Latin intended to prove that the Armenians in Transylvania were all faithful to the Roman Catholic Church. They celebrated the holdays according to the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church while the Uniate priests celebrated the sacraments, as a result of Oxendio’s mission, following the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.357 This, however, did not mean that the Armenians in Transylvania were Uniate in practice. The authorities in Transyvania did not deal with Oxendio’s complaint any more. However, according to Father Bonalini, the Catholic estates of Transylvania assured Oxendio of their support. This, however, proved insufficient.358 With some irony we can put it the following way: Bishop Oxendio with his complaint of 1692 greatly contributed to the establishment of the Armenian community in Elisabethopolis the inhabitants of which did not consider themselves Uniate for quite a few more years.359 Father Bonalini in his above-mentioned report mentioned that maintenance and additional costs were needed for the successful continuation of the missionary work since the Uniate priests and missionaries were starving. He also pointed out that due to the conflicts with the Saxons and the different attitudes towards the church-union, a lot of Armenian families moved back to Moldavia led by Vardapet Astwacatur.360 The church-union did not develop the way Bishop Oxendio would have liked it. In Father Accorsi’s view, in the tense situation, the local authorities were trying to divert the Armenians from the Roman Catholic path using the Saxons. In spite of the fact that the bishop and his uniate flock were favoured by

355 356 357 358 359 360

Ibid. Pag. 78−80. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 77. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 77–80.; Nagy, 2011. 283−313. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 265. Gazdovits, 2006. 221. APF SOCG, Vol. 520. Fol. 286.; APF SOCG, Vol. 522. Fol. 453–454.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 266., Fol. 267.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

the higher authorities and the emperor, according to Accorsi the Uniates in Bistriţa suffered a lot from the harassments of the heretic Protestants and the Armenians who rejected the church-union. The Protestants pitted the schismatic Armenians against the Uniate one Armenians and let them know that they would protect them from Oxendio’s persecutions.361 In December, 1692 Bishop Oxendio travelled to Moldavia for a short time and tried to persuade vardapet Astwacatur and his followers to return to Transylvania. The reports the bishop wrote from Moldavia, however, attest to his failure in this regard. The authorities in Moldavia did not like that a Uniate high priest was doing missionary work in a mostly Orthodox Christian milieu within the principality without any authorisation. Therefore, Oxendio decided to depart rather urgently. The Propaganda Fide reprehended the bishop since he went on a mission in Moldavia without the permission and authoriation of the missionary institution of the Apostolic Holy See. Astwacatur returned to Transylvania in spring 1693 and preached against the church-union in the Armenian community in Bistriţa and Gheorgheni. Oxendio asked General Veterani’s help and imperial soldiers arrested the Armenian priest who was imprisoned in Sibiu. Oxendio and Veterani accused him of not only with the rejection of faith but also of being allegedly in connection with the “traitor” and rebel Emmerich Thököly. This last charge was not proved although the first charge was serious enough in itself. The investigation never finished because Astwacatur died in the prison soon under unclear circumstances.362 Oxendio’s mission and episcopate had financial and economic difficulties besides the religious ones. The unstable political situation and the Crimean Tatars’ frequent attacks played a great part in this. General Veterani contacted the Holy See through Sebastiano Antonio Tanara (1650–1724), Titular Bishop of Damascus and Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna. The general explained that Oxendio turned to him in person to ask for his intervention again at the Propaganda Fide on his behalf because he had not received his remuneration of a hundred scudos since 1692.363 The Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw referring to the information he received from the general mentioned the Tartar raids in Transylvania and their negative consequence: the Tartars enslaved many Armenians.364

361 APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 40., Fol. 63–64.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 269., Fol. 274.; Petrowicz, 1988. 96. 362 APF Acta SC, Vol. 63. Fol. 68–70.; APF SOCG, Vol. 514. Fol. 495–496., Fol. 497., Fol. 498., Fol. 499., Fol. 500., Fol. 501., Fol. 502.; APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 100., Fol. 110.–111., Fol. 119., Fol. 147. 363 APF Acta SC, Vol. 63. Fol. 79.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 64. Fol. 21–22.; APF SOCG, Vol. 515. Fol. 87., Fol. 88., Fol. 89.; APF SOCG, Vol. 517. Fol. 102., Fol. 103.; APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 24–25., Fol. 95–96., Fol. 147., Fol. 154., Fol. 165–166.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 313.; Tóth, 2004. 880. 364 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 320.

155

156

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Nuncio Tanara did not mention Oxendio’s financial difficulties in his letter yet, only a month later in another correspondence sent to the Propaganda Fide. He reported to the Apostolic Holy See that with the help of Veterani, the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna sent 560 Rheingulden immediate aid and 50 scudos special allowance to the bishop. Veterani forwarded Oxendio’s request to the Apostolic Holy See to send him his overdue remuneration for the previous two years because otherwise he could not continue the missionary work.365 The Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna informed the Apostolic Holy See of the Tartar attacks in 1693 and 1694 and mentioned that the Tartar raids caused considerable losses among the Armenians in Szeklerland, more than previously.366 Due to the raid on February 4th , 1694 the Armenian colony in Frumoasa in fact ended. The Tartars enslaved about a hundred and forty mainly local Armenians and demanded a high price for them. The Tartars let them know that the captured Armenians would be sold as slaves if the ransom was not paid.367 Bishop Oxendio and Father Bonalini travelled to the Governorship of Transylvania in Cluj-Napoca (Clausenburg/Claudiopolis/Kolozsvár, Romania) and asked them to lend them a thousand Rheingulden so that they could pay off the ransom of the faithful.368 The Governorship of Transylvania turned down this request due to lack of funds.369 The bishop then turned to Veterani and the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna370 who promised to raise some money. In 1694 Oxendio contacted Cardinal Leopold Kollonich.371 Kollonich consulted the Viennese Court and managed to persuade them to lend Oxendio, a true Catholic bishop, an aid of 5000 Rheingulden and to give a considerable tax exemption for the Uniate Armenians so that collectively they would not have to pay more than 500 Rheingulden to the Imperial Treasury. This is how they could pay the ransom for the captured Armenians.372 This was a rather large gesture especially at a time when the Imperial court was busy with the Ottoman war. Nevertheless, the transfer of the necessary funds could not have been very fast. Andrea Santacroce, Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, Titular Archbishop of Seleucia in 365 Ibid. Fol. 323., Fol. 325. 366 APF Acta SC, Vol. 64. Fol. 135–137.; APF SOCG, Vol. 518. Fol. 69.; APF LDSC, Vol. 83. Fol. 48.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 285.; Lukácsy, 1859. 72.; Bárány, 1888b. 101.; Éble, 1915. 15. 23.; Heckenast, 2005. 455. 367 APF Acta SC, Vol. 65. Fol. 54–56.; APF SOCG, Vol. 518. Fol. 66.; APF CP, Vol. 31. Fol. 390.; APF LDSC, Vol. 83. Fol. 44.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 152. Fol. 18.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 201.; Lukácsy, 1859. 18.; Szádeczky-Kardoss, 1897. 445.; K’olanĵian, 1983. 119.; Mutafian, 2018. 252. 368 APF SOCG, Vol. 520. Fol. 287.; Fáraó, 1888. 47–51.; Pál, 2006. 31–32. 369 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 325. 370 APF LDSC, Vol. 83. Fol. 110–111., Fol. 132., Fol. 152–153. 371 APF SOCG, Vol. 520. Fol. 289. 372 APF LDSC, Vol. 83. Fol. 165–166., Fol. 168., Fol. 178.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 325–326.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

Isauria, for example thought that the transfer of the maintenance and additional costs to Oxendio was too slow. In his view, Oxendio and his aids did their pastoral and missionary work in hardships and in a hostile territory.373 The frequent atrocities, the political tug of war and the controversial confessional issues urged the court to clarify Oxendio’s legal status. The fact that the church-union was not final and there were still many Armenians of wavering faith may have played a part, not to speak of those who rejected the church-union.374 The Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna’s letter, dated April 2nd , 1695 and written to the Apostolic Holy See, attested to that. Here Nuncio Tanara reported that he had corresponded with and talked to Cardinal Leopold Kollonich about the Armenians in Transylvania. In his view, it would do good to the Armenians there if Bishop Oxendio were appointed the secular governor of the Armenians. Therefore, he asked Cardinal Kollonich to exert his influence at the Viennese court in this regard.375 The Apostolic Nuncio continued “lobbying” and corresponded with Veterani as well asking for his support regarding Oxendio’s appointment as a governor.376 As a result of Cardinal Leopold Kollonich’s intervention the court agreed to appoint Oxendio as the governor of the Armenians in Transylvania. Thus, he could exert his jurisdiction over them not only in ecclesiastical but also in secular matters.377 The Armenian bishop reported to the Propaganda Fide on the churchunion and the position of the Armenians in Transylvania similarly to what Andrea Santacroce, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw wrote. He complained that the Uniate Armenians did not have their own churches and they were forced to use Hungarian Catholic churches or private houses for mass. He had the impression that due to the lack of churches the union and keeping the Armenians in the church-union were at risk.378 He pointed out that there were still many Armenians of wavering faith who had to be led back to the Catholic path day after day by preaching and teaching. There were also quite a few Armenians who were trying to avoid being converted to Catholicism.379 Therefore, he believed that the fruit of the mission will ripen slowly. Oxendio confirmed having received considerable financial and moral support from the court and the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna, the Archbishop of Esztergom as well as from the Catholic nobility in Transylvania. He emphasised the assistance and the mediating role Generals Federico Veterani and Damian Hugo

373 374 375 376 377 378 379

APF LDSC, Vol. 83. Fol. 248., Fol. 253., Fol. 255.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 350. APF Acta SC, Vol. 65. Fol. 263–266.; APF CU, Vol. 2. Fol. 156. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 368. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 369., Fol. 374–375. Ibid. Fol. 406. Ibid.

157

158

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

von Virmondt (1666−1722) played.380 Thanks to the Viennese court, he became the secular leader, in legal sense, of the Armenians in Transylvania that could be a great help in completing the church-union. Thus, the missionary activity started in 1685 would not come to an end.381 In another letter Oxendio was thanking the Apostolic Holy See for the one hundred and fifty scudos extra aid he received through the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw. He believed that before being appointed as a governor he had not been able to do work with his assistants efficiently. Now that he had secular influence over the Armenians, he could accomplish the church-union easier.382 The bishop reported on his own “diocese” for the first time in 1696. We, however, doubt this. The Catholics in Transylvania in principle had their own bishop while Oxendio had no diocese for the Uniate Armenians in Transylvania since he was but a titular Bishop. When he was appointed as bishop in 1690 a diocese was not mentioned in concreto and no decision was made whether a new diocese was going to be established for the Armenians in Transylvania. It is more likely that this was Oxendio’s selfish idea. It is unknown what the precise reaction to this the Apostolic Holy See, the Viennese Court or the Hungarian Catholic clergy had, although undoubtedly all of them would have opposed this precious project of the bishop.383 Oxendio’s reports around this time were a far cry from reality, not lacking in exaggerations and unfounded information. Despite those wavering in their faith and the incident of Elisabethopolis, the bishop reported on his diocese as a unified Catholic Armenian diocese.384 He was trying to convince the Propaganda Fide that the church-union of the Armenians of Transylvania was accomplished and completed. The bishop meant to prove this with a letter written in Armenian by his flock he took with himself to Vienna in June 1696 for the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna. In this letter, it was stated that the Armenians were true Catholics and left their “heretic” Apostolic religion behind.385 The Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna sent a summary to Carlo Aogostino Fabroni (1651–1727), the new Secretary of the Propaganda Fide. The Nuncio confirmed that the Armenian bishop visited him in August 1696 and reported on his missionary activities of the past years. The Nuncio enclosed the letter written in Armenian which stated that the Armenians became irrevocably faithful to the Roman Catholic

380 381 382 383 384 385

Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 411. APF LDSC, Vol. 84. Fol. 6–7., Fol. 8–10., Fol. 10–11.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 407–408. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 407–408. Ibid. APF Acta SC, Vol. 66. Fol. 155.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 409.

The First Years of Oxendio Virziresco’s Episcopate in Transylvania (1690–1696)

Church in Transylvania without mentioning the Elisabethopolis incident and the fifty Armenian families of Apostolic Armenian faith who settled down there386 During his stay in Vienna, Oxendio requested protection for his people against the atrocities committed by the Saxons. The bishop thought that the Armenians could be kept within the church-union in the long run only with further privileges provided for them since many moved back to Moldavia and, due to the clashes with the Saxons, he could not guarantee that the Armenians would remain in Transylvania. He saw that moving back to Moldavia would practically be identical with the rejection of the church-union.387 Therefore he intended to gather, in one town, the Armenians who had been living dispersed in Transylvania until then. In his appeal to the Emperor he requested some of the fiscal possessions, namely Armenopolis or Gurghin (where several Armenian families had lived since 1668), for the Armenians at a fair price. To facilitate the positive reception of his appeal, Oxendio contacted Cardinal Kollonich as well as the Propaganda Fide asking for their intervention.388 He also requested the reduction of the taxes of the Armenians since this would reinforce their Catholic faith. If these conditions were not fulfilled, all the Uniate Armenians might leave Catholic faith and might return to the Apostolic faith of their ancestors. Fabroni, Secretary of the Propaganda Fide wrote a letter to Cardinal Kollonich as well as to Apostolic Nuncio Santacroce who in the meantime replaced Sebastiano Tanara as an Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna to help resolve the difficult situation of the Armenian in Transylvania.389 These interventions brought their fruit. Leopold I approved Oxendio’s request on August 20th , 1696 and assigned Armenopolis as the place for the future Armenian town.390 Oxendio informed the Propaganda Fide of the favourable outcome of the negotiations in his letter written to Secretary Fabroni dated August 25th , 1696 and confirmed that Leopold I was so kind as to accept his request which would contribute greatly to the success of the Catholic missions among the Armenians in Transylvania. The Emperor charged Baillif István Apor, Treasurer of Transylvania to execute his decision.391

386 387 388 389

APF SOCG, Vol. 524. Fol. 363–364.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 434. Éble, 1915. 13. APF SOCG, Vol. 520. Fol. 286–287.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 268.; Bethlen, 1860. 158. APF SOCG, Vol. 524. Fol. 363., Fol. 366.; APF LDSC, Vol. 85. Fol. 81.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 151.; GYÖKPK, A Plébánia története, I. Könyv. 1. Fejezet. (1695–1719).; Bárány, 1888b. 102. 390 APF LDSC, Vol. 85. Fol. 22–23.; Éble, 1915. 14.; Trócsányi, 1983. 174. 391 APF Acta SC, Vol. 66. Fol. 191.; APF SOCG, Vol. 525. Fol. 83–86., Fol. 111., Fol. 112.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 522.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 151., Fol. 152.; MNL-OL, B 2. 1697. No. 111.; MNLOL, B 2. 1698. No. 233.; Lukácsy, 1859. 77.; Szongott, 1901. 256.; Éble, 1915. 14.; Trócsányi, 1983. 175.; Petrowicz, 1988. 97.; Galla, 2010. 152.

159

160

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

It looked as if the visit of the Armenian Uniate bishop in Vienna in August 1696 brought positive development for the Armenians in Transylvania. Apor, however, slowed down the introduction of the imperial privileges considerably. Oxendio complained at the court in March 1697 that the treasurer did not execute the Emperor’s order and the matter was not closed despite his complaints. Baillif Apor, in the meantime, investigated Oxendio and did not want to execute Emperor and King Leopold I’s decree until the case of the bishop had been concluded.392 Oxendio bought a property of high value in Gurghiu in 1696 which was not a donation from the court but was purchased by the bishop. The treasurer found Oxendio’s fast money-making suspicious since Oxendio had been complaining about his dire financial situation several times in the past. Therefore, Apor was intending to investigate the bishop’s fast way of becoming rich.393 Apor was suspecting corruption, therefore the Armenopolis matter was off the agenda and brought back only in 1700.394 The handing over of the manor took place only after Rákóczi’s War of Independence failed.395 Year 1696 brought other important changes in ecclesiastical matters. Emperor and King Leopold I appointed András Illyés (1637–1712), former Provost of Sibiu, born in Ciucsângeorgiu (Csíkszentgyörgy, Romania), Transylvania, as the Roman Catholic Bishop of Transylvania. The Emperor gave him the lordship of the Abbey in Pilis and the Provostry of Esztergom-Szentistván.396 His appointment was approved by the Apostolic Holy See in January 1697 thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Kollonich, Archbishop of Esztergom.397 After acquiring the authorisations, Bishop Illyés arrived in Transylvania in March 1697. This was important in the church-history of Transylvania because since 1601 when Roman Catholic Bishop Demeter Naprágyi/Naprághy (1564–1619), appointed in 1600, was forced to leave Transylvania, there was no Catholic high priest in concreto in the principality.398 András Illyés’s episcopate was short-lived. The Governorship of Transylvania, under the strong influence of the Protestants in Transylvania, expelled the bishop referring to the Diploma Leopoldinum. The Diploma allowed for the Catholics 392 APF Acta SC, Vol. 66. Fol. 201–202.; APF LDSC, Vol. 85. Fol. 27–28. 393 Bžškeanc’, 1830. 122.; Éble, 1915. 15. 394 ÖSTA, AVFHA. FAH. Kt. Fol. 344–345.; MNL-OL, F 46. 1698. No. 238.; Bethlen, 1860. 201–209. 223.; Bíró, 1935. 78–79. 87. 395 Éble, 1915. 15–16. 396 APF SOCG, Vol. 535. Fol. 1–3.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 3. Fol. 46–52., Fol. 110.; GYFL, I/1a. 7. p.; GYFL, I/4. Vol. 3. Fol. 247–248.; Fraknói, 1896. 417–418.; HC, 1958. 385.; Bíró, 1925. 123. p.; Cserei, 1983. 301.; Trócsányi, 1988. 279–281.; Zsoldos, 1990. 136.; Tóth, 2005. 2931. 2945. 2949. p.; Galla, 2005. 271.; Varga, 2007. 77. 397 APF Acta SC, Vol. 74. Fol. 55.; APF SOCG, Vol. 526. Fol. 275.; AAV, ACPC. Vol. 91. Fol. 468–479.; Galla, 1942–1945. 175.; Galla, 2005. 271.; Galla, 2010. 152.; Galla, 2015. 395. 399. 417. 398 ARSI, FA. Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81.; Tóth, 1998. 65.; Boga, 1923. 10–15.; Bíró, 1935. 93–97.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

of Transylvania an Apostolic Vicar and not a Bishop with a diocese. The bishop did not give up and came to Transylvania in 1703 again with the support of the Viennese court. His second attempt also failed because, due to the Rákóczi‘s War of Independence, he had to leave in autumn 1704. He never returned although he used the bishop title until his death in 1712.399 The matters of the Catholics and the diocese were handled in his absence by Vicar Bertalan Szebelébi and after his death in 1709 by Vicar János Antalffy (1644–1728).400 Therefore as a Uniate Titular Bishop, Oxendio Virziresco remained the highest Catholic dignitary in Transylvania.401

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700) Armenian intellectuals in Transylvania in the 19th and 20th centuries considered Bishop Oxendio an Apostle of pure morality and unwavering faith. They praised his leadership skills as a high priest and how determined he fought for the interests of his people. On the other hand, they provided few pieces of useful information regarding the bishop’s actual missionary and church organisational activities. In the Armenian community in Transylvania, the dominant view was that Bishop Oxendio’s episcopate was free from problems or conflicts and the church-union, he accomplished in Transylvania, took place without a hitch. The Elia Mendrul Case of 1697, however, cast a dark shadow over this prevalent idyllic picture.402 It is worth noting that literature does not discuss this story at all and the question arises whether historians in the 19th and 20th centuries knew about it at all. If they did, then they avoided this topic intentionally not to smear the positive image created of the bishop. Recently a more complete and clearer picture of the conflict has emerged by studying some documents found in the Historical Archive of the Propaganda Fide and in the Apostolic (Secret) Archive in Vatican City. Research allowed us to modify the idealistic image of the bishop and provided us new data regarding the case. Important historical data that later proved to be untrue hindered the historical study of the Elia Mendrul Case. The few writings that dealt with Oxendio’s life

399 APF Acta SC, Vol. 74. Fol. 296.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 3. Fol. 42–43.; Jakab, 1944. 18.; Galla, 2005. 272.; Galla, 2010. 152. 400 GYFL, I/1. 12–13. p.; Veszely, 1860. 365–366.; Zsoldos, 1990. 251. 261, 264. 265.; Galla, 2005. 272. 401 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 219.; PL AEV, SPK. No. 339/1–10., No. 340/1–4.; PL AEV, ARER. No. 1840/1.; Bárány, 1888b. 105.; Cserei, 1983. 302–303. 306.; Miron, 2004. 32–33. 402 Vanyó, 1986. 180.; Kovács, 2006. 57–58. 67.; Shore, 2007. 78–79.; Nagy, 2007a. 158.; Nagy, 2007b. 10–12.; Nagy, 2008b. 411–428.

161

162

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

mentioned that the bishop was captured by the Tartars when they attacked Transylvania in 1697. They took him to the Ottoman Empire where he was imprisoned for three years. He was released from his incarceration following the Treaty of Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz) in 1699.403 Research has proved this story absurd since the bishop sent a lot of hand-written letters and reports from Transylvania to the Propaganda Fide, the coordinating institution of missions at the Apostolic Holy See, regarding the Elia Mendrul Case between 1697 and 1700. Therefore, it looked impossible that in the above-mentioned period, Bishop Oxendio would have sent hand-written letters and reports from his captivity when the place of date was either, Bistriţa, Cluj-Napoca, Gheorgheni, Gurghiu, Petelea, or Sibiu. There were many unanswered questions underlying the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania, signed in Lviv, in 1689. It was not clear which former (mediaeval) church-union model the union of the Armenians in Transylvania was based upon. The church-union concerned only the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and did not touch upon important questions such as the marriage of Uniate priests, the use of the calendar, the celebration of the Eucharist, the language used during liturgy, the remuneration of the clergy or elevating the clergy to nobility.404 When signing the church-unions in Brest in 1596, in Užgorod in 1646 and in Alba Iulia in 1697–1701, these problems were detailed in the agreements. The unclarified issues were constant sources of conflicts among the Armenian clergy in Transylvania. Church-union was interpreted one way by Oxendio and another way by the Uniate Armenian clergy. The Armenian Uniate Church called for a synod in Lviv at the end of October 1689 where they discussed the abovementioned issues. The Armenians in Transylvania were also invited but no one participated at the council for an unknown reason. Oxendio did not accept the decrees mandatory for himself since the Armenians in Transylvania were directly subordinated to the Propaganda Fide since 1690 and were not under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Uniate Archdiocese in Lviv. This proved to be another source of conflict since Oxendio’s assistants had been seminarists at the Armenian College in Lviv and they intended to respect the decrees of the Council of Lviv in 1689 and not Oxendio’s views. Oxendio Virziresco, who had been studying at Urbanian College in Rome, wanted to accomplish the total Latinisation of the Armenians in Transylvania after the church-union. For him an Armenian could only be a true Christian provided he kept the traditions, the rites and holidays of the Roman Catholic Church and considered any Armenians, be a secular person or a clergyman, a heretic or a schismatic who

403 Lukácsy, 1859. 72.; Bárány, 1888a. 101.; Merza, 1896. 5. 9–10.; Temesváry, 1896. 209–217.; Éble, 1915. 15.; Heckenast, 2005. 455.; Mutafian, 2018. 253. 404 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 94.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

would keep the old Armenian customs and rites despite the church-union. Oxendio thought the reason for the hardships and sufferings of the Armenian people was caused by the fact that the Armenians left Orthodox Catholic faith in the 6th century and revered false and heretic teachings. God therefore constantly punished them. The church-union with the Roman Catholic Church would, therefore, be the only way to avoid further sufferings for the Armenian people. As was mentioned above, at the turn of 1691 and 1692 a conflict erupted in Bistriţa due to church discipline. Two former Armenian Uniate priests, Vardan Martinus Potoczky and Astwacatur Nigošean were preaching against the churchunion. Oxendio requested the secular authorities in Transylvania to help but could not stop anti-union incidents. Prince Michael Apafi II took the resisting Armenians of Bistriţa under his protection and settled down fifty families led by Priest Vardan in Elisabethopolis. Anger, however, did not subside and was burning like embers under the cinders. The conflict erupted in January 1697 when Oxendio was forcing four Armenian married priests (out of whom three were from Bistriţa) to divorce their wives and leave their families since due to their sodomite, errant customs (aka heresy) they were a threat for the church-union and the uniate Armenian community in Transylvania. Oxendio named Elia Mendrul, Andrea Alacz, Elia Teodorowicz and the apostate priest Vardan Martinus Potoczky of Elisabethopolis. He considered Archdeacon Elia Mendrul as the ringleader.405 Unfortunately, only few data are available about Elia Mendrul’s life. He fled from Moldavia to Transylvania with Bishop Minas. He was considered as the head of the Armenian Apostolic faith in Transylvania after Minas’s death since he was the deputy of the deceased bishop. At the turn of 1688 and 1689 the missionary Oxendio managed to win him over to the church-union. From Oxendio’s perspective this was victory because he was worried that after Bishop Minas’s death, the Armenian Catholicos would appoint Elia Mendrul as the Apostolic Bishop of the Armenians in Transylvania. Elia Mendrul and the apostate Vardan Martinus Potoczky, who would later move from Bistrița to Elisabethopolis, led the delegation of Armenians in Transylvania who signed the church-union with Archbishop Vardan Hunanean in February 1689. They even requested the archbishop and Giacomo Cantelmi, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw then, to intervene at the Aposolic Holy See for the appointment of Oxendio as their bishop.406 The priests who were accused in 1697 did not leave Oxendio’s charges unanswered. Elia Mendrul and Andrea Alacz contacted Giovanni Antonio (Gianantonio) 405 APF LDSC, Vol. 87. Fol. 8–9. 406 APF CP, Vol. 29. Fol. 630–631., Fol. 644–645., Fol. 647–648.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 15. Pag. 251–252.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 34.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 23. (Without pagination).; Lukácsy, 1859. 71.; Nilles, 1885. 921.; Bárány, 1888a. 71.

163

164

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Davia (1660–1740), Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Titular Archbishop of Thebae, and sent him a complaint on behalf of the Armenian community in Bistriţa. They described Oxendio as a corrupt and tyrannical high priest.407 They informed Nuncio Davia that Oxendio asked money for each service. If the members of the community failed to pay, the bishop would not administer the sacraments to them.408 The only information we have of Andrea Alacz is that at the time of the conflict regarding Vardan Potoczky in 1692 he stood by Bishop Oxendio and he prepared the report for the Governorship of Transylvania about the Armenian religious customs with someone else.409 The Nuncio was also informed that Oxendio when visiting the Armenian houses in Bistriţa on Epiphany, 1697, asked money from each head of family. Those who were not willing to pay were threatened with excommunication. Oxendio accused the Armenian community to celebrate Christmas not on December 25th but on January 6th according to the old Armenian customs.410 Oxendio asked for money for stole from the Armenian merchants of Eastern Apostolic faith in Sibiu. They would not want to pay since they were not under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the bishop and they were not from Transylvania but from the Motherland, Armenia. Therefore, the merchants who were “harassed” by the bishop contacted the priests who were also accused by Oxendio and told them about Oxendio’s deeds. The merchants called the bishop a fraudulent scoundrel ripe for the gallows.411 Elia Mendrul and the other priests thought that Oxendio wanted to divert attention from his obscure financial dealings by accusing them.412 The affair got to the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw through the complaint letter sent by the accused priests to Lviv.413 Father Accorsi confirmed the Propaganda Fide that in Bistriţa in Transylvania a conflict erupted between the bishop and the Armenian community in the focus of which was not the case of the married priests but Oxendio’s unclear financial dealings.414 Father Accorsi saw the reason for the conflict in the poor financial situation of the bishop who received his remuneration of a hundred scudos a year always with big delays from the Propaganda Fide. Because of the alleged cases of abuse at the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw the idea of initiating Oxendio’s deposal at the Apostolic Holy See came up. The Rector

407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 523. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 523. ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 77–80. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 523.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 155. Fol. 81.; ARSI FA, Hist. Vol. 176. Pag. 106.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 24. Pag. 289–292.; Nilles, 1885. 916–918.; Shore, 2007. 76. APF CP, Vol. 31. Fol. 370., Fol. 371–375., Fol. 469.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 523.; Benda, 2003. 795.; Galla, 2005. 313. 315–322. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 523. Ibid. Fol. 518. Ibid. Fol. 522.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

did not approve of this.415 He assessed that removing Oxendio would do damage to the missionary work among the Armenians in Transylvania.416 The Rector voiced his concern that the controversies among the Armenians in Transylvania might lead to chaos and the same would happen as with the churchunion of the Armenian Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz in Lviv. Therefore, Accorsi asked the Propaganda Fide to investigate the case of Oxendio and the married priests in all its details.417 In Bistriţa, the discord continued. Oxendio declared heretic the married status of Elia Mendrul and his colleagues while the accused priests described the bishop as a Godless, devil-like personality. Oxendio set up an ad hoc committee to investigate in June 1697. The members of the committee were, apart from him, were Mihály Sorger OFM Conv., guardian of the Holy Trinity Monastery of the Order of Friars Minor in Canta and Emmanuel Jacubowicz Uniate priest and Armenian Judge of Bistriţa. Oxendio accussed the priests who were married with disobedience. By this affair, the community in Bistriţa was divided. Oxendio mentioned about four hundred fifty heads of family who were considered Elia Mendrul’s loyal followers.418 Setting up the committee, however, was not considered the right move not only by Oxendio’s enemies but also many of his loyal followers since the bishop convoked not just Elia Mendrul and his fellow priests but also one of his aids, Lazar Budachowicz. He openly defended the accused priests and did not judge them for their being married.419 Therefore Bishop Oxendio was looking for a pretext to accuse him as well. He finally charged him with breaking his vow of chastity and keeping lovers in secret.420 The accused priests and the majority of the Armenian Uniate clergy did not understand what was going on. Oxendio, however, remained adamant in his missionary fervour and insisted on his charges against the priests of the Armenian community. When in June 1697 a young Armenian priest, Sahak Jakubowicz asked him to marry him to the daughter, Anna of a rich Armenian merchant in Bistriţa Yovhannēs Serikean, Oxendio was so outraged of the request that he not only rejected it but also suspended priest Sahak from his office.421 In the end the committee, the legitimacy of which the accused priests doubted from the beginning, made the decision that the Uniate Armenian priests could no longer exercise their vocation, celebrate a mass or administer the sacraments unless

415 416 417 418

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 522. Ibid. Fol. 524. Ibid. Fol. 531. APF Acta SC, Vol. 67. Fol. 303.; APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 272.; APF LDSC, Vol. 86. Fol. 267.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 159–160., Fol. 161., Fol. 164. 419 APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 267. 420 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 159–163., Fol.165. 421 Ibid. Fol. 166.

165

166

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

they divorced their spouses. Since the priests do not show obedience towards the bishop the committee interpreted this as a sign of disrespect not just for Oxendio but also for the Catholic Church and its head the Pope in Rome.422 Oxendio enclosed a hand-written letter to the report prepared of the committee’s work in which he drew the attention of the Apostolic Holy See to a conspiracy Oxendio uncovered. Oxendio found a connection between the married priests and the apostate priest Vardan in Elisabethopolis who defied his will with success five years before. It was, therefore, not by chance that Oxendio named Vardan as the cause for the conflict.423 He voiced his conviction that Elia Mendrul and his colleagues under the leadership of Vardan were, in fact, the loyal followers of the “heretic” Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin in Armenia. They remained in Transylvania to disrupt the Armenian community, to destroy the church-union and his missionary work of several years.424 In our view, the bishop could not accept the Elisabethopolis failure in 1692 and that was why he intended to tie the Elia Mendrul Case to Apostate Vardan. Oxendio first wanted to settle the account with Vardan. He contacted General Jean Louis Rabutin de Bussy (1642–1717) who provided soldiers at his disposal. Oxendio arrested Vardan in Elisabethopolis and imprisoned the “heretic” priest in Sibiu whose followers, about fifty-sixty Armenian families remained without a priest in Elisabethopolis. Elia Mendrul and his fellow priests considered the charges unfounded, hypocrite an unacceptable. Most of the population also disapproved of the decrees. The reason for this was that the priests who had lived in Bistriţa since they fled to Transylvania had more of an authority among the Armenians than the bishop who ”came from Rome” and was overbearing. Therefore, the decrees passed by Oxendio did not reach their goal. So Oxendio looked for other pretexts to break the resistance of the priests and the people following them. He spread the rumour that Elia Mendrul and his colleagues denied the existence of the Purgatory and the teaching about the two natures of Jesus and were the followers of Monophysitism. He also let people know that in fact Elia Mendrul and his fellow priests were after his bishop’s office and they may have been in cahoots with the Catholic Bailiff István Apor.425 Therefore, the bishop set up another committee the main task of which was to find out whether Elia Mendrul and his colleagues were monophysites or not. Lazar Budachowicz was also convoked by the committee who had previously defended the accused Armenian priests. The young priest attacked the bishop and the legitimacy of his investigation. He named the cause of the problems not Elia Mendrul but the bishop himself. In his view, the bishop diverted attention with this case from the 422 423 424 425

APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 272.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 160., Fol. 166. APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 267., Fol. 269., Fol. 274–275.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 162. APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 275., Fol. 280–281.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 162., Fol. 164. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 167–168.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

real issues that concerned the community and the investigation was a conscious attempt to create confusion.426 Father Budachowicz’s standpoint stemmed in his conviction and not selfish defiance. He was an Armenian born in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, kept their customs in evidence and was unwilling to follow Oxendio. He knew the decrees of the Council of Lviv in 1689, which declared that priests before being ordained were free to marry and members of the Armenian clergy who had been married before the church-union took place could continue their vocation.427 Budachowicz was not satisfied with criticising the bishop’s activities but also sent a report to the Propaganda Fide. In this he objected to Oxendio’s disregard of the teachings proclaimed at the Council of Lviv. Budachowicz noted that Oxendio with this pugnacious attitude caused the discord and the division in the Armenian community of Bistriţa. He confirmed the rumours of the bishop’s dubious finances and in fact the bishop wanted to divert attention from himself with accusing others. Budachowicz added that the conflict generated by the bishop might result in wrecking the Armenians’ church-union and many Armenians might rebuke the church-union signed in 1689.428 Despite Budachowicz’s charges and disapproval Oxendio stood by the procedure he started. He considered celibacy important and, in his view, it was indispensable for priests to follow Christ’s teaching in chastity. He called Budachowicz a troublemaker, goaded by the married priests and put his Catholic faith in doubt.429 Due to the aggravated situation, Oxendio turned to the Governorhip of Transylvania and the Viennese court for help and had to admit that he was no longer able to control events.430 Elia Mendrul and his associates went into counter-attack and in response to Oxendio’s charges they tried to discredit him with Hunanean. They called Oxendio’s biggest sin the fact that instead of defending his own community in Bistriţa against the daily harassments of the Saxons, he terrorized the members of the community accusing them and their followers of unfounded charges at the Transylvanian secular authorities.431 They also made it very clear that in his profession Oxendio was only motivated by money and his greed for wealth was more and more insatiable. They informed the archbishop that Oxendio had lost the community’s trust and was entirely unsuitable to fulfil the office of a bishop. Therefore, they wanted to see a new

426 APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 272–273.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 160., Fol. 161–163. 427 APF SC, FA. Misc. Vol. 14. Fol. 24–27.; Hodinka, 1909. 2–3.; Vanyó, 1933. 114.; Petrowicz, 1988. 21–22.; Nagy, 2017. 102−117. 428 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 525. 429 APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 266.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 162., Fol. 163. 430 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 164. 431 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 521.

167

168

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Uniate bishop in Transylvania.432 The accused priests had no idea why there was a problem with them being married since in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Uniate priests could marry.433 The leaders of the community also voiced their opinion in the matter probably at Elia Mendrul’s urging, and sent a delegation consisting of three people to Lviv in autumn 1697 where they informed the Uniate Archbishop of the war waged within the community. The delegation asked primarily for protection for the Armenians against the abuse of Bishop Oxendio. They also disapproved the investigations carried out and the retorsions applied against the married priests. They refuted Oxendio’s charging them of being Monophysite heretics who acknowledged only the one divine nature of Jesus. They voiced their concern reporting that as a result of Oxendio’s attitude and activities many Armenian families moved back to Moldavia and the church-union in Transylvania might fail.434 The delegation must have been convincing because Hunanean informed the Apostolic Holy See in a letter of the bishop’s abusive behaviour and named Oxendio as the only responsible for the conflict in Transylvania.435 Oxendio got wind of the community and the priests’ move and since he wanted to gain time, he contacted the Apostolic Holy See as well. He defended himself by saying that in Bistrița the secular community and Elia Mendrul who forced several families to become apostates, conspired against him. Furthermore, he accused Elia Mendrul of wanting the bishopric for himself and he tried to smear him with the Armenina Uniate Archbisbhop in Lviv as well. Oxendio considered Bailiff István Apor’s ttitude especially unfair because he suspected Apor was the one who set the community against him from behind the scenes. Finally, he suggested toset up a new committee of inquiry to resolve this issue.436 The polemics about the Elia Mendrul Case did not cease in the following months. Tensions were growing within the community when Andrea Alacz died under unclear circumstances in January 1698. There was a rumour in the community that claimed that Andrea Alacz’s death was somehow linked to Oxendio. They argued that Oxendio did not leave his house sincew the death of the priest and lived hidden away, not talking to the members of the community.437 Oxendio contacted the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna and maintained his standpoint. At this point he was not just criticising the priests for being married

432 Ibid. Fol. 526. 433 Ibid. Fol. 520. 434 MNL-OL, F 43. 1. 1699. No. 1245.; APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 282–283.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 170., Fol. 171. 435 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 521. 436 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 172. 437 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 518.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

but also for the incorrect use of the calendar since Elia Mendrul and his followers kept the most important church holidays according to the old Armenian calendar. Oxendio brought up the example that had been a constant accusation that these Armenians celebrated Christmas and Epiphany on the same day, on January 6th . The charge of Monophysitism came up again among Oxendio’s accusations: the community, in his view, continued to follow Eutyches’s teachings although these had been refuted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and these Armenians rejected the Orthodox (Dyophysite) dogma of Jesus Christ’s two natures.438 Therefore, the bishop urged the Propaganda Fide to allow the Apostolic Holy See to investigate in the case of Elia Mendrul and his associates.439 On the other hand, Oxendio’s suspicious dealings were brought up again not by Elia Mendrul and his colleagues but Armenian merchants of the Eastern Apostolic faith who had had commercial bases in Braşov and Sibiu. At the time when the conflict started, they had disagreements with Oxendio in financial matters. The four merchants, Melk’ior Mač’ewan, Israyēl Eriwanc’i, Ar.ak’el Yerusałēmc’i, and Azaria Mazarec’i were of the view that it was not disobedience in ecclesiastical matters that caused the discord but business dealings and cases of disputed inheritance. They brought up the example from 1696, the previous year when one of their business partners, Gaspar, a wealthy Armenian merchant from Constantinople, died in Sibiu whose assets, worth six thousand Rheingulden, were acquired by Oxendio. From this amount he bought an estate for himself in Gurghiu.440 Oxendio’s exaggerated application of his principles wore off the loyalty of even his closest associates. His best aid, Father Bonalini had a row with him because he interpreted this conflict in a different way and judged Oxendio’s moves exaggerated. The missionary disagreed with Oxendio’s aggressive campaigns to get money. He also disapproved the incorrect rites Armenian priests used. At the Holy Communion for example Armenian priests did not mix holy wine with water which was, in his view, a continuation of old Armenian tradition.441 The frater saw that Oxendio’s charges and moves generated antipathy from the community and this dislike was extended to his followers as well. Father Bonalini thought it a mistake on the bishop’s part to stick so much to his principles which would put his mission started in 1685 in danger. He was unable to persuade the stubborn bishop to use more gentle and diplomatic methods in the community. The decrees made by the committees of inquiry of dubious legitimacy Oxendio set up triggered counterreactions from the accused priests.442 438 439 440 441 442

Sarkissian, 1975. 194–215. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 175–176. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 177.+180.; ELTE EKK, G. Vol. 522. Fol. 178. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 519. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 527.

169

170

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Elia Mendrul and his colleagues turned to the Aposotlic Holy See for justice when they saw that their letters did not bring the desired outcome. In their letter they made far when thy stated that in their view, Oxendio set the Saxons against the Armenian community. Regarding their conflict with the Bishop, they brought up Oxendio’s corruption cases, his intolerance and tyrannical methods. They mentioned Vardan Martinus Potoczky’s case of 1692 for which they thought Oxendio responsible.443 They confirmed that many Armenian families left Transylvania from Bistriţa and its neighbourhood due to the feud and many moved back to Moldavia where thy reconverted to the Armenian Apostolic faith.444 The report written by Ełiay T’orossean, Armenian Prefect in Bistriţa who asked legal protection from the Propaganda Fide and István Apor, Oxendio’s opponent in Transylvania.445 Bishop Oxendio’s position became more serious when Giovanni Antonio Davia, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw based on the complaints received urged the Propaganda Fide to allow him to start an investigation that would inspect every detail in the case Oxendio versus the accused priests.446 The Propaganda Fide asked Theatine Father Accorsi, Rector of the Armenian College in Lviv, to gather information about the Armenians in Transylvania. Father Accorsi got these pieces of information from Father Bonalini who was critical with Oxendio. Based on this it was confirmed that the Armenian Uniate Catholics had many complaints about the bishop. What they disliked most in him was the way he turned from a benignant priest of good intentions at the beginning of his mission into a merciless and tyrannical clergyman of bad intentions after he was appointed a bishop. Due to his merciless fanatic faith, he was in constant conflict with his priests and fellow missionaries and lost the support of his flock. This resulted in a considerable part of the Armenians leaving Transylvania. The Rector concluded that Oxendio was no longer in control of the situation due to this feud and could not remedy the situation. Archbishop Hunanean confirmed Father Accorsi’s report. Oxendio, however, rejected the charges brought against him. Everything was the fabrication of the accused priests, among others of Elia Mendrul, because he thought that many of them had not been happy when the Apostolic Holy See had appointed him as their bishop in 1690.447 The Propaganda Fide made the decision after studying all the letters and reports received regarding the Elia Mendrul Case and after long debates on March 3rd , 1698. Oxendio was not deposed from his office but Andrea Santacroce, Apostolic Nuncio

443 444 445 446 447

AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 181. Ibid. Ibid. Fol. 185. Ibid. Fol. 186. APF SOCG, Vol. 529. Fol. 266–269.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 162., Fol. 164–165.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

in Vienna was requested to further investigate the affair.448 The reason why they did not judge Oxendio more severely was the fact that they highly appreciated what Oxendio had done previously in his missionary work for the Armenian churchunion in Transylvania. Among the leaders of the Propaganda Fide cardinals who supported his appointment as a bishop unanimously eight years before still were in majority. Apostolic Nuncio Santacroce appointed Bertalan Szebelébi, Episcopal Vicar of the Transylvanian Roman Catholic Church who had been in good relationship with Oxendio to investigate the affair. Jesuit Father Kristóf Gebhardt SJ (1657–1720) of Sibiu and Father Luca Fracano OFM, Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor in Bosnia, were also members of the committee of inquiry.449 Their report was completed on July 25th , 1698. It concluded that due to the feud and the unfortunate situation, further investigation and interrogations were needed.450 The committee questioned Bishop Oxendio who named Elia Mendrul as the sole cause of the feud. The bishop had discussions with the members of the committee one by one and persuaded them that he was a victim in the story. The committee was of course biased to Oxendio since the bishop entertained excellent connections with them since his appointment, therefore the result of the investigation could easily be foreseen. Elia Mendrul also realised that the committee due to its members would not favour him and his colleagues, so he fled Bistriţa with his followers before the interrogation and reckoning. In Oxendio’s view, Baillif István Apor played a part in his escape. After this, Oxendio took the initiative and urged to set up a new committee to investigate Elia Mendrul and his followers’ case in all the Armenian communities in Transylvania. Oxendio took this seriously and sent Father Bonalini, who had made peace with in the meantime, to Cluj-Napoca to have talks on the Elia Mendrul Case. Father Bonalini had discussions with Jesuit Father István Csete SJ (1648−1718), the Roman Catholic parish priest of Cluj-Napoca who wore the pseudonym of Jesuit Zsigmond Vizkeleti during the talks.451 In line with the bishop’s intentions they decided who the members of the new committee of inquiry would be.452

448 APF Acta SC, Vol. 68. Fol. 63–67.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 66. Fol. 185.; APF SOCG, Vol. 525. Fol. 57., Fol. 68.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 13. Pag. 108–152.; PL AEV, SPK. No. 303.; Galla, 2010. 151.; Nagy, 2017. 102−104. 449 ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/II. Fol. 645., Fol. 688. 450 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 187. 451 ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126//I. Fol. 105., Fol. 184., Fol. 209., Fol. 239., Fol. 265. Fol. 300., Fol. 336.; ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/II. Fol. 370., Fol. 408., Fol. 455., Fol. 492., Fol. 538., Fol. 567., Fol. 604., Fol. 647., Fol. 689.; Zsoldos, 1990. 159.; Shore, 2007. 81.; Balla, 2013. 11−47.; Balla, 2017. 28. 42−44. 452 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 192.; Cserei, 1983. 273–274.; Molnár, 2009. 227–228.

171

172

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Although there could have been doubts regarding the need for this new committee, it was up and running in a month’s time. The committee had one goal: to decide who was innocent and who was guilty, Elia Mendrul or Oxendio. The composition of the committee favoured Oxendio since he had been on good terms with its members. Apart from Jesuit Father István Csete, Father Giuseppe Bonalini, a Theatine missionary, Bertalan Szebelébi, Transylvanian Episcopal Vicar of the Roman Catholic Church, János Antalffy/Antalfi, parish priest of Ciucsângeorgiu, later Roman Catholic Bishop of Transylvania, (1724−1728),453 and Jesuit Father Tamás Merczis SJ (1648−1705), parish priest in Gheorgheni, active under the pseudonym István Halászi participated in the committee.454 In the new situation Oxendio became even more demanding. He accused Bailiff István Apor for helping Elia Mendrul’s escape. He even found out that Elia Mendrul fled to Petelea with his followers. He was worried that Elia Mendrul would turn the Uniate Armenian community against him and the church-union.455 Before the new investigations started in the Elia Mendrul Case, Oxendio meant to give the priest one last chance to return to the Roman Catholic Church and to give up his heretic customs. The bishop sent Father Bonalini to Petele who would put psychological pressure on Elia Mendrul and his followers. Father Bonalini told them that a new committee was investigating their case. However, Elia Mendrul was not impressed by Father Bonalini’s arguments and rejected to recognise Oxendio Virziresco as his bishop and denied the charges brought up against him.456 The committee of inquiry started the work in October 1698. The members of the committee visited all the Armenian colonies in Transylvania looking for Elia Mendrul and his followers. The authorities and the army fully supported them in their work. They started their investigation in Elisabethopolis because it was well-known that almost exclusively Armenians of the Eastern Apostolic faith lived there. Jesuit father István Csete applied intimidation and arrested the ten wealthiest paterfamilias. He extracted confessions against Elia Mendrul and his colleagues out of them applying torture. He was willing to pardon them only if the converted to the Roman Catholic faith in the presence of the Armenian bishop. The community to save their lives and wealth accepted the deal and officially condemned Elia Mendrul and his views.457

453 GYFL, I/1a. 34. p.; HC, 1952. 386.; Varga, 2007. 86. 454 APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 472.; AAV, ANVienna Vol. 31. Fol. 103., Fol. 106.; ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/I. Fol. 184., Fol. 209., Fol. 239., Fol. 265., Fol. 300.; ARSI FA, CB. Vol. 126/II. Fol. 408., Fol. 456., Fol. 493., Fol. 538., Fol. 568., Fol. 604., Fol. 647., Fol. 689.; Veszely, 1860. 279. 355−366.; Molnár, 2009. 245.; Nagy, 2017. 114−116. 455 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 194. 456 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 195. 457 APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 466–467.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

The committee then went to Petele because Father Bonalini heard that that was the village Elia Mendrul was hiding in. When the committee arrived there the Armenian inhabitants of the place informed them that the renitent Armenian priest and his followers left for Suseni. Obviously out of fear the majority of the people in Petelea declared themselves to be of the Uniate Catholic faith and condemned Elia Mendrul.458 The members of the committee then went to Bistriţa where they heard Budachowicz. After the interrogation Father István Csete acquitted him of Oxendio’s charges and described him as a true Catholic Armenian. They did not find an Armenian in Bistriţa then who was a follower of Elia Mendrul or the Armenian Apostolic Church. The committee conducted a similar investigation in Tirgu Mureş than in Bistriţa where they found only Uniate Armenians who seriously condemned Elia Mendrul’s deeds459 . In the end, the investigations concluded that the only responsible within the Armenian community was Elia Mendrul. Oxendio was found innocent, they declared that his suspicious financial dealings were a mere fabrication of the condemned priest. They did not manage to arrest Elia Mendrul but was suspended from his office, was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and in his absence, he was handed over to the secular authorities.460 Oxendio intended to set up a manhunt to capture Elia Mendrul. In the meantime, he heard that Elia Mendrul left Suseni and found refuge in Gurghin where the Virziresco family ived at the time. The bishop was still suspicious that someone from higher circles was helping the priest to evade him and the authorities. Oxendio prepared a detailed memorandum for the Propaganda Fide about the conflict. He of course declared himself clean and innocent. Oxendio considered Elia Mendrul and his colleagues as mere tools in creating the feud and thought that the mastermind behind it were Baillif István Apor, Treasurer in Transylvania and the “heretic” Armenian Catholicos I. Nahapet (1691–1705) (Nahapet Uŗhayec’i) who conspired against him. This claim was highly unlikely since it is not probable that the Catholic Baillif Apor and the Armenian Catholicos may have been in any kind of contact.461 Oxendio thus was cleared of the charges of corruption although no one stated the opposite. The closure of the investigation did not mean that emotions calmed down within the community. Soon after this an unknown person accused the bishop at the Propaganda Fide of corruption and heresy. It is unknown who worded the letter, but it is not impossible that it was the bishop’s enemy, Apor since the letter included 458 459 460 461

Ibid. Fol. 467–468. Ibid. Fol. 469., Fol. 470–471. Ibid. Fol. 440., Fol. 442–443., Fol. 444. APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 445–448.

173

174

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

charges that had been contained only in Apor’s and Elia Mendrul’s letters.462 We have mentioned above several times that the Armenians in Bistriţa were not on good terms with the local Saxons. The Treasurer might have used this controversy and could have produced incriminating testimonies from the Saxons against the bishop. The Saxons carried out an investigation against the bishop led by Johannes Klein, Royal Judge of Bistriţa and heard seven wealthy Saxon burghers in the Elia Mendrul Case. All the seven burghers confirmed that the person who created the Armenian feud was not Elia Mendrul but Bishop Oxendio because he stole from both the Armenian and the Saxon communities.463 Epscopal Vicar Bertalan Szebelébi denied the charges brought up against the bishop by the Saxons. In his letter written to Apor he called the charges the Saxons accused the bishop of, upon higher orders in his view, despicable lies, jealousy and fabrication. He considered the bishop a true champion of Roman Catholic faith and rejected all assumptions that would charge Oxendio with either corruption or heresy.464 The bishop’s relationship to Apor remained tense whom he suspected of conspiring against him with his enemies when the Treasurer was investigating Oxendio’s dubious financial dealings. Oxendio assumed Apor may have supported the priest unhappy with him to undermine his authority as a bishop and to weaken his position within the church.465 The Elia Mendrul Case had its toll on the bishop as well which is proved by his letter written to the Propaganda Fide before Christmas 1698 in which he voiced his own responsibility in the affair that had not been customary for him. He confessed that it was his hot-headedness and rigidity with principles that led to the eruption of the conflict among the Armenians. He did not, however, mention if he had dubious financial affairs. He kept considering Elia Mendrul a heretic and did not give up arresting him.466 Oxendio gained new strength from the conclusion of the committee of inquiry. He visited Petelea, Suseni, and Gurghin during which he stated that the communities there were almost entirely Roman Catholic except the ones who followed the renitent priest. The bishop and Father Bonalini suspected that Elia Mendrul was closely connected to Armenian Apostolic clergy in Moldavia and through them with the Armenian Catholicos. In their view, Armenians priests were to be sent from Moldavia and Wallachia to Transylvania with the approval of the Armenian

462 463 464 465

Ibid. Fol. 450–451. Ibid. Fol. 461–463. Ibid. Fol. 449., Fol. 459. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 208−211.; MNL-OL, F 46. 1698. No. 238.; Bethlen, 1860. 166–167. 181. 191.; Bíró, 1930. 139–154.; Bíró–Boros, 1941. 76–80. 466 APF SOCG, Vol. 531. Fol. 237−238.; APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 455–458.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 218+221., Fol. 219., Fol. 220.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

Catholicos to undermine the church-union. They thought and let the Apostolic Holy See know too the news that Elia Mendrul managed to persuade a Uniate priest, Yovhannēs Naxšun to be his follower attested to this.467 The bishop informed the Apostolic Holy See that the “legate” of the Armenian Catholicos arrived in Transylvania incognito in January 1699 and in Suseni, in the presence of Elia Mendrul and Yovhannēs Naxšun ordained twelve young Armenian priests according to the tradition of the Armenian Apostolic faith. They were aboput to attack them but Elia Mendrul, his follower and the mysterious “legate” fled back to Moldavia. Therefore, he and Father Bonalini raised the question of a possible mission carried out in Moldavia among the Armenians there. The Propaganda Fide did not deal with this issue then.468 The Propaganda Fide had a session about the Elia Mendrul Case on April 6th , 1699 including the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna as well. Although Oxendio was cleared of the charges but from the documents and the tone used it is clear that the Apostolic Holy See no longer trusted him. The fact that the Prefect of the Propaganda Fide since 1698 was no longer Altieri, Oxendio’s main patron in Rome but Cardinal Carlo Barberini jr. (1630–1704) who wanted Deodatus Nersesowicz to be the Uniate bishop in Transylvania in 1689 and 1690. Barberini recommended the deposal of Oxendio in connection with the Elia Mendrul Case and would have replaced him with Nersesowicz in Transylvania. The fact that, as a co-adjutor to the Archbishop, he led the Armenian archdiocese in Lviv between 1683 and 1686 and that the mission among the Armenians in Transylvania was initiated by him.469 Nersesowicz who was on bad terms with Oxendio since Oxendio’s appointment in 1690 grasped the opportunity and did all he could to smear the bishop’s name at the Apostolic Holy See. His aim was to achieve Oxendio’s deposal. He wished the Cardinals convoked Oxendio to Rome to impeach him for his bad church organisational work of the past few years.470 Oxendio was saved from being deposed by the report prepared by the Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna. Andrea Santacroce, Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna made it clear that Oxendio did not commit any crimes.471 Upon reading this report the Propaganda Fide did not depose him of his office but criticised him for mishandling the Elia Mendrul Case and causing a lot of damage to the Catholic Church among the Armenian believers in Transylvania. They thought the strict investigations unnecessary and they considered especially negatively the fact that Oxendio did not attempt to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner through

467 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 153., Fol. 199–202. 468 Ibid. Fol. 203–204. 469 APF Acta SC, Vol. 69. Fol. 107–108.; APF SOCG, Vol. 532. Fol. 434–440.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 543. 470 APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 592. 471 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 212.

175

176

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

talks which resulted in the bishop’s clash with his flock, e.g.: Father Budachowicz and Father Bonalini at the beginning of the conflict. The corruption charges were not mentioned at the session, but they stated that these charges were not proved and were handled as empty fabrications.472 The decision in the end was favourable for Oxendio. At Easter 1699, one of the followers of Elia Mendrul, priest Yovhannēs Naxšun arrived in Bistriţa from Moldavia with a few men. The reason of his return is unclear, but the bishop believed that the apostate priest could not have any other motive than converting the Armenians from the Roman Catholic faith back to the Armenian Apostolic Church. With the help of General Rabutin de Bussy the priest was arrested and imprisoned in Sibiu. Oxendio declared that he intended to charge the priest with apostasy and sodomy.473 In the meantime, Bishop Nersesowicz carried out a private investigation about Oxendio and sent a report about the abuses the bishop allegedly committed.474 The Propaganda Fide, however, at the intervention of Accorsi and Hunanean forbade his manoeuvres. At the request of the Uniate archbishop, Bishop Nersesowicz was called back to Lviv in the summer of 1699 to assist the ailing archbishop as his coadjutor.475 Cardinal-Prefect Barberini, however, asked Nersesowicz to keep an eye on Oxendio and to send him a report as soon as he heard of any maladministration.476 He convoked the bishop to Cluj-Napoca in July 1699 for the investigation of his dubious financial dealings. At the hearing of the committee in the city of Cluj-Napoca, Treasurer Apor called Oxendio to account regarding his unclear financial matters and sudden growth of his fortune in 1696. Apor also mentioned that the committee of autumn 1698 was biased towards the bishop because the bishop’s aid, Father Bonalini also participated in it. In fact, that committee was nothing more than a comedy during which they intended to hush up the bishop’s dubious affairs. Therefore, the committee could be called illegitimate. At the hearing Bertalan Szebelébi Apostolic Vicar and the Jesuits of Cluj-Napoca headed by Father István Csete and Father Gábor Kapi came to Oxendio’s defence.477 Especially Vicar Szebelébi stood by the bishop and let the Treasurer know in no 472 473 474 475

APF Acta SC, Vol. 69. Fol. 107–116.; APF LDSC, Vol. 88. Fol. 30–31. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 207. APF LDSC, Vol. 88. Fol. 58. APF Acta SC, Vol. 66. Fol. 192–195.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 68. Fol. 287–291.; APF SOCG, Vol. 531. Fol. 297., Fol. 298., Fol. 303., Fol. 304., Fol. 305., Fol. 308.; APF SOCG, Vol. 533. Fol. 483–484.; APF LDSC, Vol. 82. Fol. 5.; APF LDSC, Vol. 85. Fol. 26., Fol. 61.; APF LDSC, Vol. 87. Fol. 62.; APF LDSC, Vol. 88. Fol. 179.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 542., Fol. 586., Fol. 657., Fol. 666., Fol. 672.; APF FV, Vol. 42. Fol. 266.; Ališan, 1896a. 130.; Petrowicz, 1988. 50–54. 476 APF LDSC, Vol. 76. Fol. 90–91.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 610.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 217.; Petrowicz, 1988. 79. 477 MNL-OL, F 43. 2. 1701. No. 403–404.; Bethlen, 1860. 142–143. 149.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

unclear terms that the investigations carried out in 1697 and 1699 cleared the bishop and acquitted him from the charges of corruption. Therefore, he did not see the reason for setting up a new investigation. Oxendio himself replied to Apor’s charges vehemently. In his view, the Treasurer set him back in his activities all along and intended to smear his name on all fora. For him Apor was a heretic because he defended and supported heretic Armenians and expressed his astonishment that the Treasurer had not been convoked by Justice yet. In August 1699 the committee of inquiry closed hs work without any results.478 This news reached Lviv as well. Nersesowicz was hoping to depose Oxendio from the head of the Uniate Armenian church in Transylvania and sent a report to the Propaganda Fide. He informed them that due to his alleged corruption cases an investigation was carried out against Oxendio who he described in very negative terms. In autumn 1699 he was intending to go to Transylvania to investigate the bishop’s case.479 Since Bishop Nersesowicz did not request an authorisation for this, the Apostolic Nuncios in Warsaw and Vienna as well as Archbishop Hunanean forbade him to do so.480 Nuncio Santacroce declared that the cases of Elia Mendrul and Oxendio had been closed and the right decision had been made. The Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna asked Cardinal-Prefect Barberini especially not to depose Bishop Oxendio from his office. Nuncio Santacroce agreed with the stance Davia and Hunanean took and the financial situation of Bishop Oxendio should be resolved because in his view that was the cause for all the problems among the Armenians in Transylvania. On the other hand, he also promised to keep an eye on the bishop’s work.481 Elia Mendrul’s colleague, Yovhannēs Naxšun’s case was tried in October 1699 in Sibiu. Oxendio realised there was no point generating further conflicts within the community. Therefore, the bishop offered an agreement to the priest and to his followers; if they return to the Catholic faith, he would make sure the charges against them would be dropped and could live in Transylvania as free men. Furthermore, he offered Yovhannēs Naxšun that in case he converted to Catholicism he could continue to be a priest.482 The priest accepted the offer and after being released on November 3rd , 1699 ceremonially accepted the church-union in Petelea along with his followers.483

478 479 480 481 482

AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 213–214., Fol. 223. Ibid. Fol. 231. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 237., Fol. 251. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 601. APF Acta SC, Vol. 69. Fol. 396–397.; APF SOCG, Vol. 534. Fol. 426–427.; APF LDSC, Vol. 88. Fol. 259–260.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 224., Fol. 225. 483 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 226 –227.

177

178

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

The question arises what the cause for Oxendio’s gentle attitude. Possibly he himself grew tired of the endless controversies and did not want to show up another example of his merciless rigor as he did with Elia Mendrul in summer 1697 that made the atmosphere tenser within the Armenian communities in Bistriţa and elsewhere and resulted in even more divisions. However, reasonableness he showed could have a much more credible interpretation. In 1692 at the time of Vardan’s apostasy, Yovhannēs Naxšun stood on Oxendio’s side and rejected Vardan’s antiunion sermons and with another accused priest, Andrea Alacz and Yovhannēs Naxšun prepared a report for the Governorship of Transylvania in which they were trying to prove that the Armenians in Transylvania were Roman Catholic of faith and not Eastern Apostolic.484 After the closure of the dispute Bishop Oxendio had a visit to Elisabethopolis to see whether the Armenians there were indeed true practicing Catholics. He noticed that no trace of heresy could be seen among them and the men of the Armenian Catholicos did not do any missionary work among them. Oxendio again put on his agenda to organise a mission in Moldavia among the Armenians there. He contacted Giovanni Antonio Davia, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw. He thought if they organised a successful mission in the principality then they could stop the heretic missions that might reach out from Moldavia to Transylvania and could finish with Elia Mendrul once and for all.485 The Nuncio accepted Oxendio’s suggestion and reported to the Propaganda Fide on the intentions of the Armenian Uniate high priest.486 Oxendio, when visiting Petelea in March 1700 argued with determination in favour of the mission and urged impatiently the Apostolic Holy See to authorise the mission to be carried out in Moldavia to avoid the return of Elia Mendrul.487 Behind the Uniate bishop’s feud with Elia Mendrul and his associates lay a different interpretation of the church-union signed in Lviv in 1689, the unconditional acceptance of the Latin rites, Oxendio’s sudden wealth gain (acquiring an estate in Gurghin) and the married status of the Uniate priests. This latter the bishop called heresy which he illogically linked to Monophysitism. In any case, Oxendio wanted to get rid of them and used their married status as a pretext against them. It was only from Oxendio’s letter that the possibility of Elia Mendrul as a potential candidate for the episcopate after Bishop Minas’s death was mentioned. The Uniate bishop failed to consider of course that a married priest could not be a bishop even according to Eastern Armenian canon law, only a monk could. We believe that Oxendio saw in the old Armenian priest a potential rival since Elia Mendrul was a 484 485 486 487

Ibid. Fol. 232–233., Fol. 241., Fol. 251. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 235. Ibid. Fol. 236. APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. 103–106.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 242+249.

The Elia Mendrul Case (1697–1700)

great authority figure both within the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania and among the Armenian community. Furthermore, he was obsessed with this idea that the married priest and his followers were trying to take away his bishop’s office and therefore he accused the Armenian priest who turned against him of this. We cannot exclude the possibility that behind this conflict the fight was about acquiring the leader’s role within the Armenian community in Transylvania. The Elia Mendrul Case was a turning point in the history of the Armenian Church in Transylvania. By resolving the feud, the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was accomplished and the whole Armenian community in Transylvania became irrevocably Uniate or Catholic. Due to the feud, however, the Armenians in Transylvania weakened considerably, their number decreased in Transylvania primarily because those opposing Oxendio moved to Moldavia in significant number between 1697 and 1699. The bishop, however, came out of the conflict victorious.488 Although the number of the Uniate Armenians fell Oxendio had a smaller but confessionally more homogeneous community. In the feud the Catholic Church stood by him while the supporters of Elia Mendrul decreased due to the series of excommunications. Finally, the inappropriate handling of the feud in the Armenian community of Bistriţa did a lot of damage to the authority of Bishop Oxendio. For example, after the investigations in 1699 he fell out with Jesuit Father, István Csete because in front of the Status Catholicus (The Higher Administrative/State Body of the Roman Catholics in Transylvania), the most important body of self-government of the Catholics in Transylvania Csete did not show him the respect due to a bishop and according to the bishop mocked him in the presence of other clergymen. Therefore, Bishop Oxendio turned to Cardinal Leopold Kollonich, Archbishop of Esztergom with his complaint in which he accused Father Csete of being disrespectful and of-handed with him in the presence of other clergymen and fellow believers.489 Due to lack of data, we do not know how this case was resolved. This, however, indicates how the authority of the Uniate Armenian bishop was regarded in a different light after the Armenian religious feud that erupted in 1697 among the Catholics of Transylvania.

488 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 29. Pag. 346.; ELTE EKK, CK. A. Vol. 11. Pag. 112. 489 ELTE EKK, CP. Vol. 20. Pag. 283−285.

179

180

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710) The Elia Mendrul Case left its trace behind. Although the bishop came out of the conflict strengthened this case did weaken the Armenian community in Transylvania. Elia Mendrul and his followers returned to Moldavia where he rebuked church-union due to his confrontation with Bishop Oxendio. For Voivodes of Moldavia, Antioh Cantemir (1693–1700), Constantin Duca (1700–1703) and Mihai Racoviţă (1703–1705) the Elia Mendrul and his followers’ case came handy. The possibility cannot be excluded that the voivodes themselves tried to lure back the Armenians from Transylvania who fled there between 1668 and 1672. The voivodes of Moldavia intended to have the see of the Armenian bishops in Moldavia and not in Transylvania. They considered Oxendio’s episcopate in Transylvania illegitimate. The bishop had a great fear that Armenian priests of the Eastern Apostolic faith would come from Moldavia at the order of the “heretic” Catholicos of the Armenians in Ēǰmiacin and would destroy his missionary work as well as the church-union. Therefore, he urged the Holy Apostolic See to authorise a mission among the Armenians in Moldavia.490 On the other hand, the bishop had to do pastoral work not only among his own flock but also among the Hungarian Catholics. Since András Illyés, Roman Catholic Bishop of Transylvania dd not manage to consolidate his presence in Transylvania Oxendio remained the highest ranking Roman Catholic clergy within the Governorship of Transylvania. François Nizet OFM (1666–1714), Superior of the Order of Friars Minor, previously known as the ”Observant” branch, sent a letter dated 1700, to the Propaganda Fide in which the frater asked the Cardinals of the Propaganda Fide to authorise the use of the two or three-year-old oil at the masses since there was no Bishop residing in Transylvania at the time. Alternatively, if this was no option, then he requested a permission from the Cardinals for Oxendio to consecrate the holy oils as he was the highest ranking Roman catholic priest in Transylvania.491 This request was approved although it is not known whether the bishop himself would have consecrated the oils.492 However, this request indicates that Oxendio must have had considerable authority among the Catholics as he was asked to consecrate the church of the Monastery of the Order of Friars Minor,

490 APF SOCG, Vol. 535. Fol. 346. 491 APF Acta SC, Vol. 84. Fol. 334–335.; APF SOCG, Vol. 536. Fol. 270–271.; APF SOCG, Vol. 537. Fol. 225.; APF SOCG, Vol. 542. Fol. 86–91.; APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 166–168.; APF SOCG, Vol. 579. Fol. 20r.; APF SOCG, Vol. 583. Fol. 196–197.; APF SOCG, Vol. 584. Fol. 132–133.; Galla, 2005. 288–292.; Tóth, 2005. 2941–2942. 492 APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 175., Fol. 267–269.

Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710)

previously known as the ”Observant” branch in 1700 which he did due to the forced absence of Catholic Bishop András Illyés.493 However, on the eve of the mission in Moldavia, Oxendio’s position was not stable. He saw the reason in the fact that his flock dwindled day after day due to resettlements and the cases of apostasy between 1697 and 1699.494 Father Giuseppe Maria Bonalini sent a letter on March 8th , 1700 to the Propaganda Fide clearly at the bishop’s order to request the cardinals to allow the bishop and himself to travel to Moldavia on mission to convert the Armenians who had returned there from Transylvania.495 The Theatine Father added for more emphasis that it would not be useless for the Apostolic Holy See if they could win over the entire Armenian community for the Roman Catholic faith. The letter reflects well what Oxendio really had in mind: he intended to unite the Uniate Transylvanian and Moldavian Armenians into one diocese. Oxendio found that the most suitable place for the future See of the Armenian Episcopate would be the Armenian Saint Oxan Monastery in Suceava that functioned at the time as a Polish fortress as well.496 He argued that until 1668 when Bishop Minas and his followers fled to Transylvania, Suceava had been the centre of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Moldavia. In May 1700, Oxendio and his associates emphasised the importance of the mission in Moldavia by adding that in their view the Armenians in Moldavia were under the jurisdiction of the Catholicos of Ēǰmiacin in Armenia. Therefore, there was always a chance that the “heretic” Armenian Patriarch would send priests to Transylvania from Armenia through Moldavia to reconvert the Armenians there. Oxendio thought that with a well-organised mission authorised by the Apostolic Holy See this threat could be averted.497 But the idea of this mission did not meet with the approval of the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw or Vardan Hunanean, Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv because Hunanean himself wanted to direct the missionary work. Therefore, they tried to stop Oxendio and Bonalini’s mission.498 Oxendio and Bonalini, however, held on to their idea and requested recommendation letters from the Propaganda Fide, the Nuncio in Vienna, and the Voivode of Moldavia so that they could start the missionary work in Moldavia.499 They

493 APF SC, FA. Vol. 9. Fol. 250., Fol. 251–252.; SZTMK, No. 32.; Bárány, 1888b. 103. 106.; Fáraó, 1888. 48.; Dašean, 1895. 680. 494 Petrowicz, 1988. 99–100. 495 APF SOCG, Vol. 535. Fol. 347.+350. 496 APF SOCG, Vol. 536. Fol. 318–329.; APF SOCG, Vol. 539. Fol. 178–179.; APF SC, FM. Vol. 2. Fol. 345–346.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 21. Pag. 81.; Sávai, 1997a. 388.; Benda, 2003. 717. 497 APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 166. 498 AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 245–246. 499 Ibid. Fol. 248–249.

181

182

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

supported their request sent to the Apostolic Holy See by arguing that since the beginning of the 1690s a lot of Armenians moved back from Transylvania to Moldavia. They also heard that due to the Ottoman Turk and Tartar raids, the churches of the Armenian Apostolic faith were out of use and they thought that it would be worth acquiring and confiscating these church buildings for the Roman Catholic Church.500 Reading their appeal, one is tempted to entertain the thought that what Bishop Oxendio was really after was to acquire the Armenian Episcopate of Moldavia for himself. He was from Moldavia and one of his secret desires must have been to win over his fellow Armenians remaining or moving back to Moldavia for the church-union.501 The bishop informed the Propaganda Fide that the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople also wanted to interfere. Therefore, with the help of the Viennese court, the ambassador at Constantinople should intervene at the Sultan and the Armenian Patriarch there on their behalf asking them not to hinder their missionary work.502 Besides organising the mission, year 1700 brought an important change for the Armenians in Transylvania. Due to the conflicts with Apor and the Saxons in Bistriţa and through the intervention of the bishop, the Viennese court gave the Armenians the Gherla estate, where the future Armenopolis was going to be built and where twelve years later the Armenians of Bistriţa and the neighbouring villages moved.503 The Propaganda Fide had a session to discuss Father Bonalini’s above-mentioned letter on April 26th , 1700. After a short deliberation the cardinals forwarded the case to the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw and asked him to send Nersesowicz who was staying in Lviv at the time to the Voivode of Moldavia’s court to enquire about ecclesiastical matters and a possible mission among the Armenians.504 Francesco Pignatelli Sr. (1652–1734), Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, Archbishop of Taranto, contacted Archbishop Hunanean as well as Rector Accorsi right away enquiring about Oxendio’s intentions concerning a mission in Moldavia.505 At the same time, the nuncio reminded Secretary Fabroni that Oxendio was unsuitable for the mission due to the Elia Mendrul Case. Pignatelli was afraid that, should Oxendio were given a free hand to direct the missions in Moldavia among the Armenians, the conflicts might spill over to Moldavia as well. Therefore, he recommended the Propaganda

500 501 502 503 504

Ibid. Ibid. AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 248−249. Ilia, 1730. 67.; Bárány, 1888b. 102–103.; Szongott, 1901. 65. APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 103–105.; APF SOCG, Vol. 535. Fol. 352.; APF LDSC, Vol. 89. Fol. 224–225. 505 APF SOCG, Vol. 536. Fol. 220–221., Fol. 224–225.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 615.

Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710)

Fide Nersesowicz for the coordination of the job and the direction of the mission as a way of keeping Oxendio under control. In his view, Bishop Nersesowicz would be better at coming to terms with the Moldavian authorities as well as the Moldavian Voivode’s court and Oxendio should be subordinated to Nersesowicz.506 At their session on September 27th , 1700 the Propaganda Fide accepted the suggestion made by the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw.507 Having heard the decision of the Propaganda Fide, Pignatelli openly stood by his candidate, Bishop Nersesowicz’s mission. The Apostolic Nuncio went even further and, without consulting the Propaganda Fide, started talks with the Moldavian Voivode.508 Some information regarding these negotiations is provided by the Apostolic Nuncio’s letter dated March 9th, 1701 written to Cardinal Barberini, Prefect of the Propaganda Fide in which he refeferred to a letter written by Father Bonalini to him from Alba Iulia on February 5th , 1701. Bonalini informed the nuncio about the negotiations the Armenians in Transylvania had had about the mission to be sent to Moldavia with Voivode Antioch Cantemir. It became public knowledge also that Oxendio had exchanged several letters with the voivode of Moldavia in which Oxendio asked the voivode to allow him to lead his Armenians living in Moldavia at the time back to Transylvania. On one occasion Oxendio went to Moldavia himself to meet the voivode. He told the voivode that the Armenian churches should be looked after, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church over the Armenians in Moldavia directly exercised by the Propaganda Fide. If this could not take place then Hunanean, the Armenina Uniate Archbishop in Lviv would be happy to be the head of the Armenian Uniate Episcopate in Moldavia.509 Pignatelli urged the Propaganda Fide to send the more experienced and suitable Bishop Nersesowicz to Moldavia instead of Oxendio.510 In the Nuncio’s view, this would be the fastest way to stop Oxendio’s mission. He argued that Oxendio brought only scandal and unrest to the community in Transylvania and with his aggressive and confrontative leadership style he could hinder the church-union of the Armenians in Moldavia.511 However, the Moldavian Voivode gave permission to Oxendio to do missionary work in Moldavia as well as a safe-conduct for him and for Father Bonalini.512

506 Nilles, 1885. 922–923. 507 APF Acta SC, Vol. 70. Fol. 341–346.; APF SOCG, Vol. 536. Fol. 416–417., Fol. 418–419.; APF LDSC, Vol. 89. Fol. 116–117.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 670.; Petrowicz, 1988. 98. 100. 508 APF SOCG, Vol. 538. Fol. 272–273., Fol. 274., Fol. 275.+278., Fol. 276–277.; APF LDSC, Vol. 90. Fol. 4., Fol. 28–29.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 670. 509 APF LDSC, Vol. 90. Fol. 25.; APF CU, Vol. 3. Fol. 154. 510 APF LDSC, Vol. 90. Fol. 43–44. Fol. 92–93. 511 APF CU, Vol. 3. Fol. 613–614. 512 APF SOCG, Vol. 539. Fol. 180., Fol. 181.

183

184

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

The Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, however, had no idea of the Voivode of Moldavia’s permission. He kept repeating his opinion that Oxendio was unsuitable for leading the mission.513 He went on “lobbying” for Nersesowicz so that he would be appointed to head the mission instead of Oxendio. The Apostolic Nuncio argued that the Armenians who moved back to Moldavia left the territory of the Transylvanian Principality due to Oxendio’s activities and church-policy.514 When Oxendio received this news contacted Pignatelli to persuade him. Oxendio asked him to support him leading the mission because he was of Moldavian birth and he was no less suitable for the job than Nersesowicz.515 Hs request, however, was not heard. At the session of June 27th , 1701, the Propaganda Fide approved Pignatelli’s former appeal and so Nersesowicz could start the mission.516 Nersesowicz initiated talks with the Voivode’s court in Moldavia. Although he received authorisation from the Moldavian voivode’s court he could not come up with results. The local Orthodox clergy frowned on the missionary activities of a foreign Catholic bishop in the principality. The Orthodox Church was afraid that the bishop might convert not just the Armenian Apostolic believers but also the Romanians. The Armenians who moved back to Moldavia from Transylvania did all they could to persuade their fellow Armenians not to convert to Catholicism. The mission was bound to fail also because the Armenians of Moldavia were much more numerous than the ones who returned from Transylvania, their clergy viewed all attempts at church-union with suspicion both from the Catholics and the Orthodox Church because the Armenians in Moldavia remembered very well of the churchunion in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Nikol Torosowicz signed as well as the feud created by Oxendio in Transylvania. According to Nersesowicz’s report the Armenians who moved back to Moldavia from Transylvania stubbornly held on to their old Eastern Apostolic faith and these were the ones who reacted most strongly against the church-union.517 Christophoros Greek monk, a councillor to the Voivode in Moldavia played an important part in the failure of Nersesowicz’s mission. The Orthodox monk had a strong propaganda campaign against the “Western schismatic” missionaries working within the territories of the principality. After the almost a year-long mission, Nersesowicz returned to Lviv and gave up the

513 514 515 516 517

APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 708. APF Acta SC, Vol. 71. Fol. 69–70.; APF SOCG, Vol. 539. Fol. 182–183. APF SC, FA. Vol. 4. Fol. 709. APF Acta SC, Vol. 71. Fol. 177–179.; APF LDSC, Vol. 91. Fol. 57–58., Fol. 59., Fol. 122. APF Acta SC, Vol. 72. Fol. 237–240.; APF SOCG, Vol. 543. Fol. 123., Fol. 124–125., Fol. 126–127., Fol. 128–129.

Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710)

mission among the Armenians in Moldavia. He sent a report on his unsuccessful mission in Moldavia to the Apostolic Holy See.518 Oxendio, on his part, did not give up the mission in Moldavia although an unexpected event interfered with his plans. On February 1st , 1703 his right-hand man and vicar, Theatine Frater Bonalini deceased. The Theatine missionary died when the bishop wanted to send him in secret to Moldavia.519 Due to the changed circumstances, Oxendio asked the Propaganda Fide for help and to send him a suitable person to step into Bonalini’s shoes.520 Several candidates were suggested, for example Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka who had ties to Transylvania and who was on service in Kamianets–Podilskyi but Archbishop Vardan Hunanean would not want to part with him.521 The name of Lazar Budachowicz active in Bistrița was also mentioned but Oxendio found him unsuitable since he had confronted him during the Elia Mendrul Case and Budachowicz did not obey him.522 Oxendio found a young student of his, Elia Budachowicz, who studied at the Armenian College in Lviv, suitable but too young (nineteen years old) and inexperienced to be a vicar.523 Therefore, Oxendio had to let go of the plans of his mission in Moldavia.524 The following years brought change in the history of Transylvania. Prince Francis Rákóczi’s War of Independence spilled over to Transylvania and Francis Rákóczi was elected Prince of Transylvania and could maintain his power as a prince until the end of 1707. Catholics in Transylvania were in a difficult situation during these years. Protestant nobility and the protestant churches reclaimed their church buildings which had been confiscated by the Catholics after 1691. In this delicate political climate, the religious orders who had been active in Transylvania (primarily the Jesuits and the Dominicans) found it hard to carry on with their usual activities. The political changes that took place in 1703 and 1704 had a negative impact on the Armenians as well. Oxendio was captured and imprisoned as a bishop favouring the Habsburgs in Hărman (Honigberg/Szászhermány, Romania) in spring 1704. He was incarcerated in castle Mukačevo since he was unwilling to take an oath of loyalty to Prince Rákóczi.525 He was released at the beginning of January 1707 on 518 APF Acta SC, Vol. 72. Fol. 289–290.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 73. Fol. 41.; APF SOCG, Vol. 543. Fol. 404–405., Fol. 408.; APF LDSC, Vol. 92. Fol. 109–110.; APF CU, Vol. 3. Fol. 172.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 256.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 257. 519 APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 243., Fol. 245. 520 APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 244–245.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 34–35., Fol. 550., Fol. 555. 521 APF Acta SC, Vol. 73. Fol. 136–137., Fol. 166–167.; APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 244.; APF LDSC, Vol. 92. Fol. 24., Fol. 100. 522 APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 244. 523 APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 245.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 101.; APF CU, Vol. 3. Fol. 170., Fol. 172. 524 APF SOCG, Vol. 545. Fol. 245. 525 APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 20.; APF LDSC, Vol. 96. Fol. 29.; MNL-OL, G 16. I. 2. d. No. 520.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 128.; Lukácsy, 1859. 18–19. p.; Bárány, 1888b. 105.; Cserei, 1983. 339. p.;

185

186

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

condition he left Transylvania and the territories under Rákóczi’s control. Therefore, he left for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from where he sent a report to the Propaganda Fide on what had happened to him526 He explained the reason why he was imprisoned by not wanting to take an oath of allegiance to the “rebellious” Hungarian leader. He emphasised that although Prince Francis Rákóczi II was of the Catholic faith he was a sworn enemy to the Roman Catholic Church who confiscated thousands of churches for the Protestants and under whose rule the Jesuits, the Franciscans and the Dominicans were constantly harassed. He saw with his own eye that a church was confiscated from the Catholics in Košice (Kaschau/Kassa, Slovakia) by Rákóczi’s men and was given to the Calvinist Reformed Church.527 In Oxendio’s view, what the uprising kuruts and Prince Francis Rákóczi II did to Hungary and Transylvania was blasphemy. He was sorry to note that a part of the Armenians in Transylvania left and moved back to Moldavia. The remaining Armenians lived in communities in Bistriţa, Batoş, Ditrău, Elisabethopolis, Gheorgheni, Gurghin, Petelea, Remetea, and Suseni. Since Rákóczi’s men confiscated all his wealth and belongings he could not go to Transylvania. Therefore, there was no one who could handle the Armenian matters in Transylvania.528 In the meantime, Oxendio left Poland and went to Vienna where he met Marco Antonio Santini, Apostolic Interim-Nuncio in Vienna, to whom he related his hardships. The Apostolic Holy See compensated his losses by finally paying his salaries for the last five years.529 The Propaganda Fide at his session held on March 14th , 1707 gave permission to the bishop to return to either Transylvania or Moldavia.530 Not long afterwards, Oxendio requested the Propaganda Fide to send him letters of recommendation from Emperor Joseph I (1705−1711) and Mihail Racoviţă, Voivode of Moldavia, so that he could continue his missionary work in Transylvania and Moldavia.531 On May 23rd , 1707 the Propaganda Fide approved Oxendio’s request for recommendation letters for his missionary work in Transylvania. His request regarding Moldavia, however, was rejected since this issue was not timely and due to the pre-

526 527 528 529 530 531

Magyari, 1994. 44–45.; Szádeczky–Kardoss, 1907. 3–24.; Bíró–Boros, 1941. 91.; Rákóczi, 1951. 77–78.; Petrowicz, 1988. 102.; Heckenast, 2005. 456. p.; Tóth, 2005. 3002. 3018. APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 20.; MNL-OL, G 19. II. 2. e/A. Ibid. APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 20.; MNL-OL, G 19. II. 2. e/A. APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 21–22.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 256., Fol. 290.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 8. 61. p. APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 23.; APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 278–280.; APF LDSC, Vol. 96. Fol. 26. APF Acta SC, Vol. 77. Fol. 67., Fol. 86–87.; APF SOCG, Vol. 558. Fol. 24.; APF LDSC, Vol. 96. Fol. 75–76.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 101., Fol. 256. Petrowicz, 1988. 102–103.

Bishop Oxendio’s Attempt to Organise a Mission among the Armenians in Moldavia (1700–1710)

vious failure in missionary activities.532 In spite of this, Oxendio left for Moldavia in May 1707 but not long after his arrival he met so much hatred and antipathy that he decided to return right away. In 1708 when he went to Transylvania, he realised how scattered his flock was.533 The cardinals agreed at the General Session of the Propaganda Fide on November 26th , 1708 that the whole mission among the Armenians should be re-organised from scratch in Moldavia led by Oxendio.534 The Interim-Nuncio of Vienna informed the Propaganda Fide on September 3rd , 1708 that Oxendio left for another mission in Moldavia. He received letters of recommendation from the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw so that he could reach the Principality easier.535 Oxendio also received authorisation for his missions from the Apostolic Holy See. This was surprising because a year before The Apostolic Holy See did not authorise his mission in Moldavia.536 We do not have precise information on the bishop’s mission. Oxendio recounted the Propaganda Fide his imprisonment in Mukačevo and his plans of his mission in Moldavia but he said nothing about his short stay in Transylvania.537 Due to lack of sources, we do not have information about Oxendio’s next mission (or attempt) in line in Moldavia. He returned to Transylvania for good only in 1710 after the political situation was consolidated. Baron Damiano Virmondt, Lieutenant General of the Imperial Army informed the Apostolic Holy See in a letter about this. He added that many of the Armenians reconverted to heresy due to Oxendio’s forced absence.538 Oxendio reacted to Virmondt’s letter and in a report written to the Propaganda Fide denied the Lieutenant General‘s allegations.539 He wanted to prove first that heretic rites were no longer among the Armenians in Transylvania who were true Catholics. This document is much more than a simple report. It also reflects Oxendio’s idea of Catholicism, the history of his mission and the Armenians in Transylva-

532 APF Acta SC, Vol. 77. Fol. 145–146.; APF LDSC, Vol. 96. Fol. 199., Fol. 205. 533 APF Acta SC, Vol. 77. Fol. 164–165., Fol. 216–217.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 80. Fol. 263–267., Fol. 361.; APF SOCG, Vol. 559. Fol. 29+32., Fol. 30−31., Fol. 253–254.; APF SOCG, Vol. 564. Fol. 327–328.; APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 281., Fol. 282., Fol. 287–288., Fol. 289.+292.; APF SOCG, Vol. 573. Fol. 93.+94.; APF LDSC, Vol. 97. Fol. 277–278.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 288.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 8. Pag. 57., Pag. 61.; Lukácsy, 1859. 79.; Bárány, 1888b. 103.; Kovács − Kovács, 2002. 85. 534 APF Acta SC, Vol. 78. Fol. 660–661.; Govrikean, 1896. 131.; Petrowicz, 1988. 103. 535 APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 288. 536 APF LDSC, Vol. 98. Fol. 71.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 290. 537 APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 703. 538 APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 206–207. 539 APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 283–285.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 265–268.; Vanyó, 1986. 180.

187

188

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

nia and provides a relatively precise picture of the state of the Armenian community at the time.540

Bishop Oxendio’s Last Years and the Privileges Donated to Armenopolis After his return in Transylvania in 1710, Oxendio Virziresco visited all the Armenian communities in Transylvania and found the Uniate Armenian Diasporas in dire straits. To his sorrow, he realised that the Rákóczi’s War of Independence did great damage to the Armenian Uniate church because many of the Armenians moved out of Transylvania. This emigration wave was accelerated by the several epidemics of the plague that broke out in Transylvania between 1708 and 1711. Oxendio himself was not in a good state physically and financially. His estate in Gurghin was ruined by the uprising Kuruc and due to the Rákóczi’s War of Independence he did not receive his annual salary for years from the Apostolic Holy See although it was promised several times. Therefore, he tried to request the 100 scudos at the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna and the Propaganda Fide to be paid in one lumpsum because he had no income whatsoever and had difficulty paying for his living costs.541 In 1712 due to the constant conflicts with the Saxons, the Armenians were forced to move from Bistriţa and the neighbouring villages to the Armenopolis estate donated to the Armenians by the Emperor in 1700.542 This is when Armenopolis started to be built.543 The last straw was when in 1712 during the plague epidemic the Saxons of Bistriţa blamed the Armenians saying that the plague was their fault. The Armenians’ move was also motivated by economic and political factors apart from the conflicts with the Saxons and the plague epidemic. Until 1712 the Armenians had lived in smaller or bigger closed communities in the Transylvanian Principality and they believed that if they built up one big community it would be easier to request privileges from the monarch. The bishop was badly influenced by the death of András Illyés, Catholic Bishop of Transylvania in 1712. This left Oxendio as the only Catholic high priest in Transyl-

540 APF Acta SC, Vol. 77. Fol. 279–280.; APF SOCG, Vol. 559. Fol. 570., Fol. 571., Fol. 574., Fol. 575.; Ávedik, 1896. 107. 541 APF SOCG, Vol. 572. Fol. 278–281., Fol. 282., Fol. 287–288., Fol. 289+292.; APF SOCG, Vol. 573. Fol. 93., Fol. 94.; APF LDSC, Vol. 99. Fol. 82., Fol. 83–84., Fol. 118., Fol. 324.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 5. Fol. 550.; AAV, ANVienna. Vol. 196. Fol. 267. 542 ÖSTA, AVFHA HP. Bd. 1072. Fol. 201.; MNL-OL, B 2. 1713. No. 45., No. 48., No. 75; Barthelmäss, 1897. 16.; Kölönte, 1910. 130.; Kovács, 2006. 54. p.; Pál, 2007. 79–80. 543 AAV ANVienna, Vol. 196. Fol. 147.; Szongott, 1901. 110–116.; Éble, 1915. 15.; Trócsányi, 1987. 1000. Pop, 1998. 168–191.; Kovács, 2006. 54.; Garda, 2010. 7.; Tamáska, 2013. 65−71.; Tamáska, 2018. 8.

Bishop Oxendio’s Last Years and the Privileges Donated to Armenopolis

vania and out of necessity became the head of the Transylvanian Catholics as well. Tasks usually performed by bishops, such as ordination of priests, visitations, consecration of oils and the Catholic sacrament of confirmation, were the ones he was in charge of for the Transylvanian Catholics that no other clergy in Trasnylvania was allowed to do. Therefore, he attended to these tasks relating to the Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania as the acting Bishop upon the request of the Viennese court.544 In October 1710 he consecrated bells in Racu (Csíkrákos, Romania) in this capacity.545 Between February 3 and 7, 1712 as an acting Bishop in Transylvania, he visited the Monastery of the Order of Friars Minor, previously known as the Observant branch, in Călugăreni (Mikháza, Romania) where he consecrated the new altar, three new chalices and three pyxes and ordained Sebestyén Kiss, László Bögözi and Menyhért Jegenyei as monk-priests.546 Oxendio felt that due to the thwarting and hostile local authorities Armenians could not always use the commercial privileges they received from the Prince of Transylvania back in 1680. He prepared a memorandum on November 10, 1711 and submitted to the Viennese court as well as the Governorship of Transylvania regarding the Armenopolis estate that was donated to the Armenians in 1696. Bishop Oxendio sent a copy of this document, dated November 30, 1711, from Alba Iulia to the Propaganda Fide asking the cardinals and the Apostolic Nunciature in Vienna to intervene at the Viennese court.547 In the memorandum written in Latin and consisting of 14 points, Oxendio requested tax exemption for three years for the Armenians and also asked for protection from the military commanders in Transylvania. He argued that, due to the Rákóczi’s War of Independence, the Armenians suffered great losses. The bishop urged the Apostolic Holy See to send his annual salary which he had not received for at least two years.548 He also asked all the Armenians in Transylvania to be assigned under his ecclesiastical jurisdiction and requested them the right to do the liturgies in their own language.549 This latter request is interesting because, as we have seen above, Oxendio meant to enforce Latinisation in the Vardan Potoczky and the Elia Mendrul 544 Lukácsy, 1859. 64–65.; Nilles, 1885. 915.; Tocănel, 1972. 241.; Karácsonyi, 1985. 220.; Trócsányi, 1988. 234. 545 Bárány, 1888b. 104. 546 APF Acta SC, Vol. 83. Fol. 7–8.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 152. Fol. 368.; APF SOCG, Vol. 861. Fol. 92.; APF SC, FUT. Vol. 5. Fol. 74–80., Fol. 162., Fol. 294–295.; Galla, 2005. 297–298. 547 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 144–147., Fol. 172.; APF SOCG, Vol. 580. Fol. 560–565., Fol. 559., Fol. 566.+569., Fol. 567–568.; APF SOCG, Vol. 581. Fol. 98–99.; APF LDSC, Vol. 101. Fol. 36–37., Fol. 255., Fol. 263–264.; ÖSTA, AVFHA HP. Bd. 1072. Fol. 201. 548 APF SOCG, Vol. 580. Fol. 557–558.; APF SOCG, Vol. 581. Fol. 99.; APF LDSC, Vol. 101. Fol. 47–48. 549 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 144−147.; APF SOCG, Vol. 580. Fol. 560–565.; SZTMK, No. 28., No. 29.; MNL-OL, F 234. XII 12 . Fasc. 2. Litt. A.; Govrikean, 1896. 10–11.; Éble, 1915. 16. 49–57.; K’olanĵian, 1962. 502.; K’olanĵian, 1967. 362. 366.; Trócsányi, 1983. 176–177.

189

190

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

Cases. In fact, he had taken very serious measures against the Armenian priests in Transylvania who during the 1690s preferred to use Armenian language instead of Latin during mass. Maybe in the meantime he understood that the Uniate Armenians could not be forced aggressively to follow the Latin tradition because then he would risk the church-union. No decision was made concerning the memorandum for a long time. Therefore, Oxendio left for Vienna at the beginning of 1712 to request privileges for Armenopolis, the biggest Armenian community in Transylvania the building of which was underway and to have his memorandum heeded.550 Oxendio said he undertook the trip to Vienna upon the request of the Armenian community in Transylvania because their appeal concerning Armenopolis had stalled.551 First of all, the Bishop Oxendio went to see Giulio Piazza (1663–1726), Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna, Titular Archbishop of Nazareth, and asked him to intervene on their behalf. Oxendio turned to the Propaganda Fide on August 6th , 1712 and asked the cardinals to intervene with Charles III (1711–1740), King of Hungary for the ecclesiastical and commercial privileges of the Armenians in Transylvania. The Bishop, in fact, wanted to have a Diploma Armenum issued for Armenopolis.552 Some of the requests formulated in his memorandum, however, were accorded only at the end of the 1730s and 1740s.553 In 1713, he was a witness in György Mártonffy, Bishop of Transylvania’s trial. Mártonffy arrived in Transylvania and filled in the position of the Roman Catholic Bishop in Transylvania, vacant since 1601 in Alba Iulia, only three years after he had been appointed.554 György Mártonffy was appointed Roman Catholic Bishop in Transylvania and granted a Barony (Liber Baro) to re-establish the authority of the Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania by Hungarian King Charles III upon the request of the official institution of Roman Catholics in Transylvania called the Transylvanian Roman Catholic Status, and upon the intervention of Cardinal Christian August of Saxe-Zeitz (1666−1725), Saxon Prince and Archbishop of Esztergom.555 The Consistory held on August 20th , 1714 accepted the appeal submitted by Charles III and confirmed Mártonffy‘s appointment. Political

550 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 172.; Bárány, 1888c. 137.; Trócsányi, 1983. 183–184. 551 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 443.; APF SOCG, Vol. 583. Fol. 212. 552 APF Acta SC, Vol. 82. Fol. 443.; APF SOCG, Vol. 583. Fol. 211.; ÖSTA, AVFHA HFÖ. Rote Nr. 750.; MNL-OL, B 2. 1712. No. 155.; Trócsányi, 1983. 178. 553 APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 552–553.; Govrikean, 1896. 130–131. 554 AAV, ACPV. Vol. 41. Fol. 555–568.; GYFL, I/1a. 15. p.; GYFL, I/4. Vol. 3. Fol. 6.; Kollányi, 1900. 323–324.; Temesváry, 1910. 4–10.; Bíró, 1925. 119–120.; Galla, 1942–1945. 167.; Jakab, 1944. 18.; HC, 1952. 386.; Zsoldos, 1990. 250.; Sávai, 1997a. 118–119.; Fazekas, 2003. 790.; Galla, 2005. 273.; Nagy, 2007a. 156.; Varga, 2007. 90. 555 ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 16. Pag. 135–137., Pag. 185–190.; ELTE EKK, CH. Vol. 26. Pag. 265–274.

Bishop Oxendio’s Last Years and the Privileges Donated to Armenopolis

status quo had consolidated by then in Transylvania in favour of the Viennese court, therefore the bishop could fill his position and start to re-organise his diocese with no further delay. Mártonffy’s appointment was preceded by some important regulations: in 1715, the year Oxendio died, the Hungarian king regulated the income of the Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania, the chapter adjunct to the cathedral was re-organised, and the bishop was appointed Lord Lieutenant of County Judeţul Alba (Fejér/Fehér, Romania).556 In spite of this, Bishop György Mártonffy filled his position in concreto only in 1716. The new bishop made a lot of effort at the Apostolic Holy See for religious orders that had done a lot in the counter-reformation movement in Hungary such as the Pauline and the Trinitarians Fathers, to be called in to Transylvania. He also requested permission to establish a seminary to be established within his diocese.557 The Armenian bishop spent almost three years in the capital of the Habsburg Empire and was trying all possible ways to gain a favourable decision from the Viennese Court. He also requested help from Giorgio Spínola (1667–1739), the new Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna and Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, with not much success.558 Oxendio wrote two letters dated December 2nd , 1713 in the capital of the Empire and sent them to the Propaganda Fide. In these letters the bishop was begging the leadership at the Propaganda Fide to help acquire from the Viennese court privileges for Armenopolis as well as the so-called Armenian Diploma because Oxendio who had been working on this matter in Vienna for 12 months already was getting no result.559 This would have been very important because the Armenians in Transylvania in their letter written on January 2nd , 1714 sent to the bishop to Vienna complained that the Transylvanian authorities wanted to tax the Armenians in Armenopolis, Elisabethopolis, Gurghin, and Gheorgheni separately and charged them a high figure and not the way it had been customary since Prince Michael Apafi I. Similar to the Greeks and Jews in Transylvania, the Armenians of Transylvania wanted to keep paying their taxes in one lumpsum. However, no answer regarding this issue came back from their bishop.560

556 APF Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 437–438., Fol. 587–589.; APF Acta SC, Vol. 86. Fol. 75–76., Fol. 102–103.; APF SOCG, Vol. 599. Fol. 196.+197.; APF SOCG, Vol. 600. Fol. 535.+536.; PL, AEV SPKER. No. 477.; Lukácsy, 1859. 73–74. 77–78.; Vanyó, 1933. 113.; Petrowicz, 1988. 169. 174–175. 181.; Kovács – Kovács, 2002. 102−106.; Galla, 2005. 273–274.; Nagy, 2007a. 156–158. 163–164.; Nagy, 2016. 68−84. 557 APF SOCG, Vol. 603. Fol. 349, Fol. 350., Fol. 352., Fol. 417., Fol. 418–419., Fol. 420., Fol. 453., Fol. 454. 558 APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 218., Fol. 219., Fol. 227., Fol. 237., Fol. 374.; ÖSTA. AVFHA SA. Rote Nr. 8. Konv. Fol. 414–415. 559 APF Acta SC. Vol. 84. Fol. 23–24.; APF SOCG, Vol. 591. Fol. 121., Fol. 122., Fol. 123−124., Fol. 126.; APF LDSC, Vol. 103. Fol. 3–4., Fol. 6–8.; ÖSTA, AVFHA HP. Bd. 1080. Fol. 632. 560 MOL, B 2. 1714. No. 108.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 128.; Bárány, 1888c. 138.; Pál, 2006. 30.

191

192

Oxendio Virziresco and the Church-Union of the Armenians in Transylvania

The stress caused by lobbying, waiting and negotiating for three years had its toll on the health of the 61-year-old bishop. On March 7th , 1715 he suddenly fell ill and was taken to the St. John’s Hospital in Vienna. He had high fever and shivers and lost his consciousness the same night. The doctor at the hospital asked the doctor at the court for help who could not diagnose Oxendio.561 Three days later March 10th Oxendio died.562 His death was most probably caused by stroke. Due to his mysterious illness rumours spread that he was poisoned by someone instigated by the Viennese court and the Hungarian Catholic clergy563 because Oxendio was too influential in Armenian matters in Transylvania. These conjectures and fabrications had probably no base: why would a high priest be assassinated who during his office proved to be loyal to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Viennese court? These rumours may be contradicted by the fact that Oxendio felt death approaching. Six days before passing away on March 4th , 1715 he wrote down his last will. He detailed his wealth to the tiniest bit and disposed of them: he ordered the estate and the mill in Gurghin to be sold. 100 Florins were to be given to each Armenian Uniate priest in Transylvania. He left the remaining amount to his last alive brother, Stephen (Step’an Virziresco) and the families of his deceased brothers (Łukas, Ladislavo, K’ristop’or, and T’ēodor Virziresco). Furthermore, he asked those loyal to him in Transylvania to pay for the costs of his prolonged stay in Vienna. He recommended Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka as his successor and Lazar Budachowicz as Roszka’s deputy.564 Armenian Uniate father Luigi (Ludovico) Moschero, former seminarist at the Urbanian College who was staying in Vienna at the time, informed the Propaganda Fide three days after Oxendio’s death.565 The bishop was buried in the Saint Barbara Church of the Order of Misericordians in Vienna. The funeral ceremony was celebrated by Armenian Uniate priest Ełia Erzurumec’i, Titular Bishop of Smyrna who had been staying in Vienna for 15 years as well as the Syriac Uniate priest Nicolaus Gallad born in Damascus in Syria.566

561 APF SOCG, Vol. 598. Fol. 267. 562 APF SOCG, Vol. 598. Fol. 269.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 57–58.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 544–545., Fol. 552–553., Fol. 588.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 16. Fol. 775.; Bžškeanc’, 1830. 128−129.; Trócsányi, 1983. 179.; Petrowicz, 1988. 103.; Kovács, 2006. 58. 563 Szávai, 2003. 130. 564 Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 170., Fol. 582.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 231.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 588., Fol. 642–643.; Bárány, 1888c. 139–141.; Gopcsa, 1895. 379.; Szávai, 2003. 130.; Kovács, 2006. 59. 565 APF SOCG, Vol. 598. Fol. 265–266.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 58. 566 APF Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 169–171., Fol. 582.; APF SOCG, Vol. 598. Fol. 106., Fol. 107., Fol. 108., Fol. 109., Fol. 110., Fol. 111.+112., Fol. 116., Fol. 267–268.; APF SOCG, Vol. 601. Fol. 550–552.;

Bishop Oxendio’s Last Years and the Privileges Donated to Armenopolis

When Oxendio died the position of the Armenian Uniate bishop in Transylvania became vacant. A debate started regarding the jurisdiction over the Armenian Uniate Episcopate since the re-organised Roman Catholic Bishopric in Transylvania wanted to extend its control over the Armenian Uniate Church in Transylvania. The situation was further complicated by the death of Vardan Hunanean, Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv, three months after Oxendio’s death, on June 15th , 1715 at the age of seventy-one after a long illness who may have been able to stop the controversy around the Armenian episcopate in Transylvania.567 Jan (Yovhannēs) Tobiasz Augustynowicz (1664–1751), former coadjutor to the Archbishop, a former seminarist at the Armenian College in Lviv and Titular Bishop of Epiphania in Syria succeeded Vardan Hunanean as a Uniate Armenian Archbishop in Lviv. Unlike his predecessor, Augustynowicz concentrated primarily upon the affairs of the Armenian Uniate Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This attitude showed in his approach to the Armenian church-policy in Transylvania since during his pontificate he displayed little interest for the Armenians in Transylvania and their Uniate church.568

Ilia, 1730. 69.; Lukácsy, 1859. 72.; Bárány, 1888c. 141.; Petrowicz, 1988. 103–104.; Szávai, 2003. 130. 567 APF Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 430–432.; APF SOCG, Vol. 600. Fol. 509–510.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 151–152.; GYÖKPK, A Plébánia története. 1. Könyv. 1. Fejezet. (1695–1719).; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 197–198. 568 APF Acta SC, Vol. 85. Fol. 520–521., Fol. 582.; APF SOCG, Vol. 600. Fol. 509–510., Fol. 513.; APF SOCG, Vol. 601. Fol. 267., Fol. 268., Fol. 270.; APF SOCG, Vol. 602. Fol. 187., Fol. 188.; APF SOCG, Vol. 608. Fol. 435.; APF LDSC, Vol. 104. Fol. 205–206.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 6. Fol. 273. Fol. 342., Fol. 352–353., Fol. 480.; APF SC, FA. Vol. 7. Fol. 105.; HC, 1952. 221. 243.; Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. 198.; Petrowicz, 1988. 107–108.

193

Conclusions

This monograph examined the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and its direct consequences. The church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania and Bishop Oxendio’s activities has been considered by church-historians a marginal topic. This marginality has proved to be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It has been a drawback since for long decades there have been few pieces of reliable information available for research. Quality literature regarding this topic has been scarce and hard to attain. Studying this field required special knowledge in Armenian studies The advantage provided by the marginal nature of this topic came from its very drawback. Based on the documents partly found and partly reinterpreted by us, a very interesting picture, rich in dynamics, of the period between 1685 and 1715 in Transylvania unfolded depicting the Armenians’ historical and confessional situation seen from the perspective of the Armenians or more precisely of Bishop Oxendio. This period was exciting since Transylvania transformed from a relatively independent Principality into a region ruled by the Governorship of Transylvania under the suzerainty of the Habsburg court in Vienna. This structural and political change brought about confessional changes as well that impacted the Armenians directly or indirectly. After a long period, in 1696 the Roman Catholic Diocese in Transylvania was finally reorganised, and the church-union of the Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania was signed, although these processes slowed down due to Tartar attacks from Crimea and Rákóczi’s War of Independence. When considered through the “glasses” of the Habsburg court in Vienna and especially from the point of view of Vienna’s church and population settlement policies, the picture of the Armenians in Transylvania and their church-union becomes problematic and nuanced. First of all, the Armenians of Transylvania were not included in the plans for the settlement policies of the Viennese court especially because the Habsburg Monarchy, based on the plans of Cardinal Leopold Kollonich and Palatine Pál Esterházy, concentrated on the re-organisation of the central and Southern parts of the reconquered Hungarian territories and did not consider Transylvania from this point of view. In the re-organisational plans only the restauration of the Roman Catholic bishopric in Transylvania was mentioned. Furthermore, Armenian refugees settled down in Transylvania that was still an independent principality spontaneously in two waves. Before and after these waves, Armenians immigrated in small numbers and then a considerable number of them left Transylvania. The Armenians were not called in and settled down by the Habsburgs in Transylvania. Even Prince Michael Apafi I was not following a

196

Conclusions

plan between 1668 and 1672 to invite Armenians from Moldavia to settle down in Transylvania in large numbers. Armenians were refugees who suffered religious persecutions primarily in Moldavia and Podolia and they fled to Transylvania of their own accord. They may have chosen Transylvania as refuge because during the 17th century many Armenian merchants visited the big fairs and markets in Transylvania and they acquired information of the situation in the principality and the religious tolerance there. However, between 1685 and 1715 the number of Armenians in Transylvania fluctuated considerably because many Armenian families moved back to Moldavia after the pogroms had been over and also due to the hardships caused by internal conflicts after the church-union within their community, as well as the Tartar attacks from Crimea and Rákóczi’s War of Independemce. Thus, the number of Armenians in Transylvania decreased considerably by the year of 1711. As was mentioned above, it was a conscious effort on Prince Michael Apafi I’s part to invite the Armenians into Transylvania. He dealt with them only ten years after they settled down. This had primarily economic reasons. The prince saw in the Armenian refugees a considerable economic force in society and meant to counterbalance the influential Saxons in Transylvania as well as the Greek merchants organised in companies who also represented financial power. That was why he issued an edict on October 25th , 1680 for the Armenians in Transylvania, which provided free trade and free move for them within the territory of Transylvania. After 1690 this was not withdrawn or modified radically by either the Habsburg court in Vienna or the Governorship of Transylvania that was established then. Until the end of the 1730s the Viennese court did not concern itself much with the Armenians in Transylvania, therefore the privileges provided by Prince Michael Apafi I were respected during the above-mentioned period. On the other hand, it is pure fiction that the prince settled down the Armenians in Bistriţa, Frumoasa, Gheorgheni or at his own estate in Elisabethopolis as part of a plan. The establishment of the Armenian community at this last place had nothing to do with Prince Mihály Apafi I as was handed down by Armenians in Transylvania. A decisive turn took place in 1692 when Prince Michael Apafi II invited 50 Armenian families from Bistriţa to settle down in Elisabethopolis upon the intervention of Lord Chancellor Miklós Bethlen. This was due to internal conflicts within the Armenian Church in Transylvania. The Habsburg court had dealings with the Armenians only in an indirect way. At the end of the negotiations for the purchase of the estate in Armenopolis in 1696 the court gave its approval, the deal weas signed and sealed in 1700 but the Armenians could move in only after Rákóczi‘s War of Independence in 1712 from Bistriţa and the neighbouring villages. In confessional matters neither Prince Michael Apafi I, nor the Habsburgs interfered in the Armenians’ affairs. The prince ordered Bertalan Szebelébi, Apostolic

Conclusions

Vicar of the Roman Catholic Church to provide churches for the Armenians for holy masses and liturgic purposes. Many considered this the first step towards the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania. This interpretation, however, seems exaggerated and somewhat forced since the Armenians had their own bishop then and followed their own liturgy according to their own tradition. It was in the interest of the Viennese court and the Hungarian Catholic clergy to have as many faithful followers both in Transylvania and in Hungary as possible. However, the Armenians with their church-union were not seen important for some reasons. The Viennese court considered missionary activities among Armenians a matter of the Apostolic Holy See. Perhaps this was due to the fact that by the time the Diploma Leopoldinum was issued the Armenians in Transylvania had already signed the church-union in 1689. After 1690 the Viennese court and the Hungarian Catholic clergy were happy to note that the Armenians in Transylvania had become Uniate previously. The Habsburg court paid much more attention to the church-unions of the Subcarpathian (Upper Hungarian) Ruthenians, the Serbians of the Southern region or the Romanians of Transylvania and to the consolidation of their church-unions. This can be explained by the importance these three ethnic groups and their sheer numbers. Therefore, they represented greater economic and political force in society than the Armenians. The untapped economic potential of the relatively few but mobile Armenian community in Transylvania was realised by the Viennese court much later, well after Oxendio Virziresco’s death. The church-union of the Armenians of Transylvania was not motivated primarily by economic considerations. The Armenian’s church-union in Transylvania was induced by the desire to re-establish the ancient religious and church unity on the part of the Catholics. Signing the Armenian church-union from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church was an ideological factor. The Apostolic Holy See saw that with the church-union of the Armenians the union of faith could be re-established that characterised the two churches in the 4th century under the pontificate of Saint Gregory the Illuminator and Pope Sylvester I. According to the Roman Catholic Church the Armenian church moved away from the Roman church because of the Armenian Apostle’s successors who chose the path of dark heresy and schismatism. Missions among the Armenians in Transylvania for a church-union around 1683 and 1684 were launched by the Armenian Archbishopric in Lviv that became Uniate not long before that. By reaching church-union, the Archbishopric of Lviv intended to achieve that the Armenians who lived in territories such as Moldavia or the Crimea (Crimean Peninsula) that had been under the jurisdiction of the Archbishopric of Lviv before their church-union, would have to join also the Roman Catholic Church. The Armenians of Transylvania should not have been an exception to this since all of them had fled from areas (Moldavia or Podolia) that had been under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv.

197

198

Conclusions

The Propagana Fide, the missionary institution of the Apostolic Holy See that co-ordinated missions, stood behind this intention of the archbishopric as well as the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw. The patronage of the Aposotlic Nuncio was important because until 1690 Catholic missions in Transylvania belonged to the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw within the administrative hierarchy of the Propaganda Fide along with those in Moldavia or Walachia. This changed in 1690. After 1690 missions in Transylvania were supervised by the Nunciature in Vienna. However, the role the Nunciature in Warsaw played in these matters between 1685 and 1715 remained decisive. During this period a considerable part of the missionary letters and reports were sent to the Apostolic Holy See and the Propaganda Fide through the Apostolic Nunciature in Warsaw. The Armenian church-union and the subsequent almost three decades were closely related to Oxendio Virziresco. The activities of the Armenian Uniate priestmissionary of Moldavian birth manifested the intentions of the Armenian Archbishopric in Lviv. Oxendio reached his assigned post from Rome through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. He experienced failures and the resistance of the local Armenian clergy that rendered his mission difficult but five years strenuous and tiring missionary work brought its fruit in the end when the church-union was signed. The missionary had a controversial relationship with the Armenian Apostolic bishop who fled from Moldavia and led his people to Transylvania. Oxendio was well aware that the success of the church-union depended on whether he could convert the Armenian Apostolic bishop to the Roman Catholic faith. However, he did not succeed in convincing the old and ailing Bishop Minas of the value of the church-union. On the other hand, Oxendio managed to persuade him to travel with him to Lviv at the end of 1686 to conduct talks with the Armenian Uniate archbishop as well as the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw. Sources noted that Bishop Minas converted to the Roman Catholic faith persuaded by Oxendio at the end of 1686 and became a member of the Uniate church. This view is supported by a few not sufficiently studied documents written by Rudolf Bzensky, the Jesuit Father from Moravia at the middle of the 1690s. By consulting these documents, we can state that Father Bzensky acquired this information directly from the by then bishop Oxendio himself. The documents kept at the Historical Archives of the Propaganda Fide, however, do contradict to the story of Bishop Minas’s Catholic conversion. These documents not only do not confirm Minas’s Catholic conversion; they do not mention it at all. These documents, however, detail Bishop Minas’s death at the very end of 1686 and its circumstances. There has been a legend that Bishop Minas declared his Catholic faith in the presence of the Uniate Archbishop in Lviv. Official letters sent to the Propaganda Fide do not confirm this. Oxendio prepared his first comprehensive report for the Propaganda Fide on his mission in Transylvania in 1686 in which he emphasised that a Uniate bishop

Conclusions

should be appointed for the Armenians in Transylvania. He was well aware that the very old Bishop Minas of the (Eastern) Apostolic faith was unsuitable for the job. The bishop did not have anyone else but himself in mind. Therefore, following the bishop’s death, he made up and spread the story of Minas’s alleged conversion to justify his claim of the position of the Uniate bishop that had become vacant due to Bishop Minas’s death. He thus created a status for himself as a legitimate candidate for the bishopric. Oxendio passed on this information to Rudolf Bzensky with whom he had a good relationship and who was working for Gábor Hevenesi. This data was later passed on and handed down in Hungarian and foreign articles, most of them old ones, without anyone verifying whether this information was authentic. The Armenians in Transylvania accepted the church-union and the catholic faith in fact only in February 1689 in Lviv from Archbishop Hunanean. It is hard to determine the precise date but since the general session (Congregazione Generale) at the Propaganda Fide dealt with the church-union of the Armenians on April 8th , 1689 therefore it makes sense to accept this date. Several problems arose regarding the church-union of the Armenian community in Transylvania. First, the churchunion meant exclusively the primacy of the Roman Pope. Second, the churchunion did not clarify important issues such as the status and remuneration of the Uniate clergy, the marital status of Uniate priests (their marriage), the liturgic language, the issue of the calendar or the clarification of the dogmas in relation to the teachings approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. This is important because with other church-unions with other Eastern churches these sensitive issues had been debated and clarified. Oxendio being educated at the Urbanian College found total Latinisation desirable. In his view, Uniate Armenian clergy had the same requirements as the Latin rite priests. The Uniate clergy in Transylvania, however, insisted on keeping the old Armenian traditions. In their interpretation the church-union consisted only of accepting the primacy of the Roman Pope. This issue of how the church-union was interpreted carried the threat of a conflict that led to the apostasy of Vardan Martinus Potoczky and Astwacatur Nigošean in Elisabethopolis in 1691–1692 and to the eruption of the Elia Mendrul affair in Bistriţa in 1697. These conflicts contradict the view that was prevalent among Armenians in Transylvania that the Armenian church-union had taken place in peace and quiet, without conflicts in Transylvania. In fact, the church-union could actually be implemented after the religious conflicts had been solved at the turn of the years of 1699 and 1700 when Bishop Oxendio and his associates managed to force the “apostate” Armenians to accept the church-union. The opposition along with many Armenian families left Transylvania and moved back to Moldavia. After this Oxendio attempted to organise a mission in Moldavia to re-convert or convert the Armenians there into Catholic faith. His efforts, however, proved in vain due to the resistance of the

199

200

Conclusions

Apostolic Holy See, the Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw, the Uniate Archbishopric in Lviv, the Moldavian authorities and Rákóczi’s War of Independence. Armenian Uniate clergy did not accept all of Oxendio Virziresco’s ideas. Many of the Uniate Armenian priests in Transylvania and the close associates of the bishop were educated in the seminary called Armenian College in Lviv. In opposition to the bishop’s views, these priests, being faithful to their education, insisted on keeping old Armenian (Eastern) Apostolic Church’s rites. These differences brought about new conflicts within the community. This was indicated by the decrees adopted at the Armenian Uniate council held between 20th and 23rd of October 1689 according to which the Uniate clergy meant to follow the church-union by keeping in part the old Armenian rites. Oxendio was invited but did not participate at the council and did not accept the teachings adopted at the council. He kept his position favouring the Latin rite and insisted on using Latin language at mass instead of Armenian. This, however, further aggravated the conflicts within the community. Oxendio was a typical neophyte priest. He believed that for Armenians the only true path was through Roman Catholic faith. He judged all old Armenian rites such as using Armenian language, as old, godless and heretic and wanted to eradicate them entirely in Transylvania. He did not consider himself as an Armenian Uniate priest but a member of the Latin rite clergy who was of Armenian origin. He was not the only one. In the 1680s Bishop Nersesowicz and Archbishop Hunanean also took the hard-liner Latinist position in Lviv. Similar to Oxendio, they acquired their theological training at Urbanian College in Rome. There was, however, a difference between Transylvania and Lviv. The Armenians in Poland were more in number than the Armenian community in Transylvania and therefore could resist both Nersesowicz and Hunanean’s Latinist views more efficiently. Furthermore, the Armenians in Poland found strong supporters in the Italian Theatine fathers teaching at the Armenian College in Lviv (such as, Francesco Giambattistà Bonesana, Sebastiano Maria Accorsi, Stefano Trombetti) most of whom spent long years as missionaries in the Armenian motherland. They realised that forced Latinisation might lead to the failure of the church-union and they managed to win the support of Giacomo Cantelmi, Apostolic Nuncio in Warsaw in this matter who, upon the advice of the Theatines, initiated the Council in Lviv where they discussed the issues of the Armenian Uniate church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the tiniest details in the spirit of the church-union of Brest. The Armenians in Transylvania and Bishop Oxendio entirely stayed away from this council. Oxendio modified his Latinist approach in part, especially in the matter of liturgic language only by the end of his life. In his appeal written at the end of 1711 to the Viennese court about the privileges to be accorded to Armenopolis, Oxendio suggested the Armenian language to be used during mass. A long and bumpy road led him to this realisation and he must have learnt from the conflicts in the 1690s and changed his former “hard-liner” views.

Conclusions

It is not easy to define what historical precedents the Armenian church-union in Transylvania had. It does not compare with the medieval attempts at churchunion in Cilicia or the Council of Ferrara-Florence. At these councils dogmatic and liturgic issues were dealt with in detail but the Armenian Apsotolic Church rejected these councils referring to national interests. Similarly, the church-union of Brest in 1596 cannot be called a precedent since Armenians stayed away from it although the council was based upon the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The church-union of Lviv brought about by Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz was clearly the result of one man’s selfish ambitions. This church-union brought the Apostolic Archbishopric of Lviv closer to Rome but issues regarding church hierarchy, dogma and liturgy that were important from the point of view of the church-union were not discussed at all. Archbishop Torosowicz’s church-union was not entirely successful: the abuses that occurred were not appreciated in Rome even if the converted archbishop was not relieved of his duties for a long time. At his death the Armenian Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was neither Eastern Apostolic, nor Western Uniate and fell apart in its structure. The re-organisation of the Armenian Uniate Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as is well-known, was laid upon Nersesowicz and Hunanean and was completed after several local conflicts at the Council of Lviv in 1689. The Armenian’s church-union in Transylvania in fact had no model to follow. There could be a parallel to the state of affairs in Lviv after Archbishop Nikol Torosowicz’s death in 1681 only because the archbishopric initiated the mission among the Armenians in Transylvania around 1683 and 1684. Regarding the Armenians of Transylvania, we find that the following statement would be close to reality: their church-union was a special local union that concerned the declaration of the primacy of the Roman Pope only. The question imposes itself whether the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was a part of the series of church-unions taking place within the Carpathian Basin. The answer is a definite no. The church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania was not initiated by the Habsburg court or the Hungarian Roman Catholic clergy. The Armenian church-union was a marginal church-union from the point of view of Hungarian church-history and it was not even declared in Transylvania but in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. On the other hand, the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania can be placed in parallel to the other church-unions. For example, the Protestant élite in Transylvania wanted to derail the church-unions of both the Romanians and the Armenians because they were afraid that with the church-unions the confessional balance in Transylvania would be upset favouring the Catholics at the expense of the Protestants. Therefore, the Protestant élite made efforts to help Gábor Nagyszeghi or support Bishop Ion Tisca or in the case of the Armenians, assisted directly or indirectly vardapets Vardan Martinus Potoczky, Astwacatur Nigošean, Andrea

201

202

Conclusions

Alacz, Yovhannēs Naxšun and Elia Mendrul in their plight against Bishop Oxendio Virziresco. A further similarity can be pointed out with the Uniate Ruthenians and the Romanians in Transylvania who suffered from Rákóczi’s War of Independence: Uniate Bishop József De Camelis was expelled, Bishop Athanasius Anghel persecuted while Oxendio was imprisoned for several years before being expelled similarly to Bishop De Camelis. The main problem with them was not about legitimacy issues concerning appointing bishops or disputes regarding canon law (as was the case with the Ruthenians) or schismatism (as was the case with the Romanians) but the fact that due to the Rákóczi’s War of Independence many Armenian families moved back to Moldavia. Bishop Oxendio and his associates therefore were very much afraid that Armenian priests would come to Transylvania from Moldavia ordered by the Armenian Catholicos to re-convert the Uniate Armenians. This fear was unfounded except for isolated cases in Elisabethopolis in 1707 and in Bistriţa in 1708. Their fear was fuelled by the case of the Romanians when the Metropolite of Bucharest sent Romanian priests to Transylvania to preach against the Romanian church-union in Transylvania not to mention the fact that the Serbian patriarchs of Sremski Karlovci tried to derail the Romanian church-union by sending out popas (priests). The Armenians in Transylvania under Bishop Oxendio’s episcopate did not have canonisation problems. They were directly under the jurisdiction first of Lviv and then of the Propaganda Fide and did not have to fight for the establishment of a diocese directly submitted to the Archbishopric of Esztergom like the Uniate Ruthenians. The Armenians did not even think of establishing an independent diocese. They were content to be led by a titular bishop directly reporting to the Apostolic Holy See in Rome. In 1696 Oxendio mentioned the Armenian diocese in two of his letters but later the bishop gave up this choice of words. Most probably he wanted to avoid conflicts with the Hungarian Catholic Church that was about to re-organise the Roman Catholic episcopate in Transylvania. Therefore, no conflict arrose such as was the case with the Ruthenians for Mukačevo between Esztergom and Eger. Oxendio was appointed Titular Bishop by the Apostolic Holy See for three reasons. First, Rome took into consideration the interests of the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church especially because the Hungarian church did all they could to re-establish the somewhat shattered authority of the Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania. Second, the Apostolic Holy See was well-informed of the circumstances of the Catholics in Transylvania through the reports sent by their missionaries. Following closely the political changes that took place in 1690 and due to the strong influence of the Protestants had, it would still not be fortunate to openly appoint a bishop to head the Uniate Armenians. Therefore, it was decided that Oxendio Virziresco would

Conclusions

keep working in Transylvania among the Uniate Armenians and the Catholics as a titular bishop incognito, clothed as a simple priest or a monk as had been done formerly by the Apostolic Holy See in the cases of Kázmér Damokos, Titular Bishop of Coronea or István Kada/Káda, Titular Bishop of Augustopolis in Phrygia. Another example, however, contradicts this; József De Camelis was appointed in 1689 as the head of the Uniate Ruthenians being Titular Bishop of Sebasteia by chance in Armenia not to diminish the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop in Eger under whom the Ruthenians belonged. Third, this type of appointment was no novelty for the Armenians. Several cases are known when the Apostolic Holy See sent on mission archbishops or bishops clothed as simple priests or fraters among the Armenians in their home land so that the Ottoman or Persian authorities or the people of the Armenian Catholicos would not recognise them. An example like this was the case of the Titular Bishops of Naxiǰewan (Paolo Piromalli). We have also seen that a title of titular bishop was given to coadjutors in the case of the Armenian Archbishopric in Lviv: in 1675 Vardan Hunanean was acoorded the title of Titular Bishop of Epiphania in Syria, in 1683 Deodatus Nersesowicz was appointed Titular Bishop of Traianopolis in Rhodope while in 1710 Stefan Stefanowicz Roszka became Titular Bishop of Himeria. During Oxendio’s episcopate, Armenians had practically no connection to the Roman Catholic Episcopate in Transylvania since in fact no Roman Catholic diocesan bishop was active during this period in Transylvania. In 1696, after Bishop István Kada’s death, András Illyés was appointed as Bishop of Transylvania but, unlike Oxendio, he could not consolidate his episcopate in Transylvania. In his stead Bertalan Szebelébi and after his death in 1709 János Antalffy, Apostolic Vicars acted as heads of the Roman Catholics in Transylvania. They were in good relations with the Armenian Uniate bishop and they considered him as their supervisor. In 1712 when András Illyés died the Armenian Uniate bishop was asked to temporary lead the Roman Catholics in Transylvania until the new diocesan bishop of Transylvania was appointed. György Mártonffy became András Illyés’s successor in 1713 at whose trial held in Vienna one of the witnesses was Oxendio Virziresco who happened to be lobbying for privileges for Armenopolis at the imperial capital just then. The question imposes whether the Armenian church-union between 1685 and 1715 can be considered a success compared to the other church-unions. As for the Serbians, their church-union failed. The Viennese court provided great economic and political privileges for the Serbs who settled down in Hungary in 1690 that made it pointless for them to sign a church-union with Rome. Previous Serbian church-unions had not proved long lived due to polemics in canon law and the assertive actions of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

203

204

Conclusions

As for the Ruthenians in Subcarpathia (Upper-Hungary), their church-union during this period (1685–1715) was half a success. The church-union was signed, the remuneration of the Uniate priests was accepted and privileges similar to those of Roman Catholic priests were to be provided. The implementation of these in practice, however, was delayed until the beginning of the 19th century. Furthermore, the Ruthenians’ church-union was impaired because due to the Episcopate in Eger they could not have their own diocese. This polemic lasted until the reign of Queen Maria Theresa when it was decided that a diocese was to be established. The Romanians in Transylvania signed a successful church-union in 1701. They could even attain at the Apostolic Holy See that the independent Episcopate in Făgăraş would be founded despite protests from the Roman Catholic clergy in Transylvania. However, the resistance of the lower clergy and the schism movements led by Romanian and Serbian priests the success of the church-union was tainted. As for the Armenians the church-union can be considered a success. One of the reasons for this was that, unlike the other church-unions, the Armenians were small in number. By the end of the 17th century their number decreased due to the constant emigration, but confessionally they became more homogeneous and therefore easier to control or govern. Bishop Oxendio with his actions and the church-union undid an old Armenian tradition according to which an Armenian community was identical with the church. At the centre of the community, especially in medieval diasporas, stood the Apostolic Church that was one with national identity. With the introduction of the church-union of the Armenians in Transylvania, with Oxendio’s activities, and the forced introduction of Latinisation, Armenian identity was pushed back into the background. If the church-union is considered from inside, from the point of view of the Armenians then it could be considered a failure since the church-union resulted in linguistic and cultural assimiliation. History shows that the Armenian communities or groups who signed a church-union with either Constantinople or Rome assimilated linguistically with the surrounding foreign environment in a few generations time. Oxendio earned imperishable merits in bringing about the church-union. Later generations did not concern themselves with his merciless and uncompromising personality but focused primarily on the church-union and the foundation of Armenopolis. Posterity forgot about the circumstances of the church-union and the conflicts that stemmed from it as well as the shadow side of the bishop’s churchpolicy. The picture of a just and charismatic minority leader, a priest prince or ethnarch was created of the bishop by posterity. In this idealised picture of the bishop by then assimilated Armenians saw a piece of their glorious past. Perhaps that was why they did not want to face the negative aspect of the bishop’s activities in Transylvania.

Conclusions

With the death of Bishop Oxendio Virziresco in 1715 an important phase of the history of the Armenians in Transylvania ended. Archives at the Apostolic Holy See hold numerous and still unpublished documents regarding later history of the Armenian Uniate (Catholic) Church in Transylvania. The polemic around the Armenian episcopal succession, the tension around church jurisdiction, forced Latinisation and the relations with the Uniate Romanian Episcopate in Făgăraş established in 1721 all indicate that the Armenian church-history in Transylvania did not end with studying the church-union, catholicisation or Bishop Oxendio’s activities. This last topic can only be researched, besides unearthing archival sources for the period after 1715 at the Apostolic Holy See in Rome, by including in the study new types of sources. A new topic to study is the history of the Uniate Armenian community in Petrovaradin (Pétervárad, Serbia), converted to Catholic faith around 1740, the rich documentation of which is held in the archives of the Apostolic Holy See and the Archives of the Archdiocese in Kalocsa in Hungary.

205

Sources and Literature

Archival Sources Armenia MA= Matenadaran, National Archive of Armenia (Yerevan) MA, MS. = Manuscripta. No. 211, 1004, 1512, 1916, 2089, 2864, 3519, 3912, 5350, 7419, 7786, 9478, 9484.

Austria BMK = Bibliothek des Mechitaristenklosters (Vienna) BMK MS. = Manuscripta. No. 12, 166, 511. ÖSTA = Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (Vienna) ÖSTA, AVFHA = Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv. ÖSTA, AVFHA FAH. = Familienarchiv Harrach. Kt. Fol. 344–345. ÖSTA, AVFHA HFÖ. = Hoffinanz Österreich. rote Nr. 750. ÖSTA, AVFHA HP. = Hoffinanz Protokolle. Bd. 1072, 1080. ÖSTA, AVFHA SA. = Siebenbürgische Akten. rote Nr. 8. Konv. ÖSTA, KA. HPE. = Kriegsarchiv. Hofkriegsraat Protokollen Expedit. Bd. 415.

Hungary ELTE EKK = Eötvös Lóránd Tudományegyetem Egyetemi Könyvtár és Kézirattár [Lóránd Eötvös State University’s Library and Archive] (Budapest) ELTE EKK, CH. = Collectio Hevenesiana. Vol. 8, 13, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 59. ELTE EKK, CK. A. = Collectio Kaprinayana. Vol. 8, 11, 38, 40, 42, 44. ELTE EKK, CK. B. Vol. 20, 59.

208

Sources and Literature

ELTE EKK, CP. = Collectio Prayana. Vol. 20. ELTE EKK, G. = Historia. (Res Transylvanica.) Vol. 522. MNL-OL= Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [National Archive of Hungary] (Budapest) MNL-OL, A 57 = Magyar Kancellária Levéltára, [Hungarian Chancellary’s Archive], Libri Regii. Vol. 20. MNL-OL, B 2. = Erdélyi Kancelláriai Levéltár [Transylvanian Chancellary’s Archive], Acta Generalia. 1697. No. 111. 1698. No. 233. 1712. No. 155. 1713. No. 45, 48, 75. 1714. No. 108. MNL-OL, E 156. = Magyar Kamara Archívuma [Hungarian Chamber’s Archive], Urbaria et Conscriptiones, Regestrata. No. 165: 4. MNL-OL, DF. = Középkori Magyarország Diplomatikai Fényképtára [Hungary’s Diplomatical Photo-Cabinet in the Middle-Ages]. No. 286 699. MNL-OL, DL. = Középkori Magyarország Diplomatikai Levéltára [Hungary’s Diplomatical Archive in the Middle Ages]. No. 14 211. MNL-OL, F 43. = Libri conceptuum regii Hungarici et Latini. 1. 1699. No. 1245. 2. 1701. No. 403–404, 466–467. 4. 1702. No. 789. MNL-OL, F 46. = Gubernium Transylvanicum Levéltára, Ügyiratok [Archive of the Governorship of Transylvania, Actes]. 1698. No. 238. MNL-OL, F 49. = Gubernium Transylvanicum Levéltára, Vegyes Conscriptiók [Archive of the Governorship of Transylvania, Mixed Conscriptions]. 5. cs. 13. Fasc. MNL-OL, F 234. = Erdélyi Fiscalis Levéltár [Fiscal Archive in Transylvania]. I. 13. d. VI/d. 4. Fasc. XII 12 . Fasc. 2. Litt. A. MNL-OL, G 16. = II. Rákóczi Ferenc Fejedelem Levéltára [Private Archive of Prince Francis Rákóczi II]. I. 2. d. No. 520.

Archival Sources

MNL-OL, G 19. = Fejedelmi Kancellária Levéltára [Archive of Prince Francis Rákóczi’s Chancellory]. II. 2. e/a. PL= Prímási Levéltár [Hungarian Primate’s Archive] (Esztergom) PL, AEV= Archivum Ecclesiasticum Vetus. PL, AEV ARER.= Acta Religionario–Ecclesiastica et Religionaria. No. 1840. PL, AEV SPSZ.= Sub Primatae Széchényi. No. 273, 274. PL, AEV SPK.= Sub Primatae Kollonich. No. 303, 338, 339, 340, 368. PL, AEV SPKER. = Sub Primatae Keresztély. No. 477.

Italy AGT = Archivio Generale dei Teatini (Rome) AGT CL, = Collegio di Leopoli. Portfolio 1, 2. APF = Archivio storico della Sacra Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli o de „Propaganda Fide” (Rome) APF Acta SC, = Acta Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Vol. 33, 34, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89/I, 90, 152. APF CP, = Congregazioni Particolari. Vol. 3, 22, 29, 31, 64, 100, 133. APF CU, = Collegio Urbano. Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. APF CV, = Collegi Vari. Vol. 2. APF FV,= Fondo di Vienna. Vol. 6, 8, 42. APF FVC,= Fondo Visite e Collegi. Vol. 21. APF LDSC, = Lettere e Decreti della Sacra Congregazione. Vol. 9, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108. APF SC, FA. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Armeni. Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, 18. APF SC, FA. Misc. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Armeni. Miscellanea. Vol. 14.

209

210

Sources and Literature

APF SC, FM. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Moldavia. Vol. 1, 2, 3. APF SC, FMPR. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Moscovia, Polonia e Rutheni. Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4. APF SC, FGCDSTU. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Greci di Croazia, Dalmazia, Schiavonia, Transilvania ed Ungheria. Vol. 1. APF SC, FUT. = Scritture riferite nei Congressi. Fondo Ungheria e Transilvania. Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. APF Ospizi. Vol. 1. APF SOCG, = Scritture Originali riferite nelle Congregazioni Generali. Vol. 59, 64, 65, 87, 120, 121, 224, 225, 228, 291, 292, 293, 309, 427, 435, 436, 445, 449, 471, 483, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495A, 495B, 496, 497, 498, 499, 503, 504, 506, 507, 509, 510, 512, 514, 515, 517, 518, 520, 522, 524, 525, 526, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542, 543, 545, 558, 559, 564, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573, 577, 579, 580, 581, 583, 585, 589, 591, 592, 593, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 605, 608, 609, 618, 627, 861. APMV = Archivio dei Padri Mechitaristi di Venezia (Venice) APMV, MS.= Archivio dei Padri Mechitaristi di Venezia. Manuscripta. No. 771, 775, 1788. ARSI = Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu (Rome) ARSI FA, = Fondo Austria. ARSI FA, CB. = Catalogi Breves. Vol. 126/I, 126/II. ARSI FA, Hist. = Historia. Vol. 149, 150, 152, 155, 157, 177.

Poland NSA= Nuncjatura Stolicy Apostolskiej (Warsaw) NSA, ANP = Akty Nuncyatury Polskiej w sprawie misji w Multanach i na Woloszczyznie. Sygn. 7.

Romania − Transylvania GYÖKPK = Gyergyószentmiklósi Örmény Katolikus Plébánia Kézirattára [Archive of the Armenian Catholic Parish in Gheorgheni] (Gheorgheni – Gyergyószentmiklós) Plébánia története [History of the Parish]. I. Könyv [Volume]. 1. Fejezet [Chapter]. GYFL = Gyulafehérvári Főegyházmegyei Levéltár [The Archbishopric’s Archive in Alba Iulia] (Alba Iulia – Gyulafehérvár)

Published Sources

GYFL, I/1/a. = Püspöki iratok, Iktatókönyvek, 1224–1778 [Episcopal Actes and Files, 1224–1778]. GYFL, I/4. = Canonica Visitationes. Vol. 3. SZTMK = Szamosújvári Történeti Múzeum Kézirattára [Archive of the Historical Museum in Armenopolis - Gherla] (Armenopolis – Szamosújvár – Gherla) No. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32.

Vatican AAV = Archivio Apostolico (Segreto) Vaticano (Città del Vaticano – Vatican City) AAV, ACPC. = Archivio Concistoriale. Processus Canonicus. Vol. 41, 91. AAV, ANV. = Archivio della Nunziatura Apostolica in Varsavia. Vol. 46, 107. AAV, ANVienna. = Archivio della Nunziatura in Vienna. Vol. 31, 196. AAV, FM. = Fondo Missioni. Vol. 106.

Published Sources Agat’angełos, 1909. = Agat’angełay patmut’iwn Hayoc’ [Agat’angełos’ History of Armenia]. Ašx. Tēr-Mkrtč’ean, Geworg – Kanayeanc’, Step’an. Tbilisi, 1909. Akinean, 1921. = Hing panduxt t’ałasac’ner [The Five Emigrated Poets]. Ašx. Akinean, Nersēs. Vienna, 1921. Ališan, 1896a. = Kamenic’: Taregirk’ Hayoc’ Lehastani ew Ŗumenioy [The Chronicle of Kameniec: Annuals of Armenians in Poland and Romania]. Ašx. Ališan, Łewond. Venice, 1896. Anec’i = Anec’i, Samuēl: Hawak’munk’ i groc’ patmagrac’ [Collection of Historical Books]. Ašx. Tēr-Mik’ayēlean, Aram. Vałaršapat, 1893. Apor, 1978. = Apor, Péter: Metamorphosis Transylvaniae. Szerk. Kócziány, László – Lőrinczy, Réka. Bucharest, 1978. (Téka.) Arcruni, 1985a. = T’ovma Arcruni ew Ananun: Patmut’iwn Tann Arcruneac’ [History of House Arcruni]. Ašx. Vardanyan, Vardan. Erewan, 1985. Arcruni, 1985b. = Artsruni, Thomas: History of the House of Artsunik’. Ed. and tr. Thomson, Robert. Detroit, 1985. Ayrivanec’i, 1860. = Ayrivanec’i, Mxit’ar: Patmut’iwn Hayoc’ [History of Armenia]. Moscow, 1860.

211

212

Sources and Literature

Balgy, 1877. = Historia doctrinae catholicae inter Armenos unionisque eorum cum Ecclesia Romana. Ed. Balgy, Alexander. Vienna, 1877. Benda, 2003. = Moldvai csángó-magyar okmánytár [Csángó-Hungarian Cartulary in Moldavia]. Szerk. Benda, Kálmán. Budapest, 2003. (2nd Edition.) Benkő, 1778. = Benkő, Josephus. Transilvania sive magnus Transilvaniae principatus. Vol. 1. Vienna, 1778. Bernád, 2006. = A Gyulafehérvári Érseki Levéltár és az Erdélyi Katolikus Státus Levéltára. Oklevél és iratjegyzék. Canonica Visitatiók mutatója [The Archbishopric’s Archive in Alba Iulia and the Archive of the Catholic Status in Transylvania. The Index of Canonical Visitations]. Szerk. Bernád, Rita. Gyulafehérvár/ Alba Iulia – Budapest, 2006. Bethlen, 1860. = Gróf Bethlen Miklós Önéletírása [Count Nicholas Bethlen’s Diary]. Kiadta: Szalay, László. Vol. 2. Pest, 1860. Bischoff, 1864. = Urkunden zur Geschichte der Armenier in Lemberg. Hrsg. von Bischoff, Ferdinand. Wien, 1864. (Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen, Band 32.) Bíró, 1930. = Apor István gróf naplója bécsi útjáról. (1697–1698) [Baillif Stephen Apor’s Diary on His Travel to Vienna]. Szerk. Bíró, Vince. Kolozsvár/Cluj-Napoca, 1930. Bŗni Miut’iwn, 1884. = Bŗni Miut’iwn Hayoc’ Lehastani ĕnd ekełec’woyn Hŗovmay. Žamanakic’ Yišatakarank’ [The Bloody Church-Union of the Armenians in Poland with Rome accoridng to Authenthic Memoirs]. Ašx. Ēzean, Karapet. Sankt–Petersburg, 1884. Buzand, 1989. = The Epic Histories Attributed to P’awstos Buzand (Buzandaran Patmut’iwnk’). Ed., tr., and comm. Garsoïan, Nina. Cambridge (Massachussets), 1989. (Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies, 8.) Cserei, 1983. = Cserei, Mihály: Erdély históriája, 1661–1711 [History of Transylvania, 1661−1711]. Ed. Bánkúti, Imre. Budapest,1983. (Bibliotheca Historica.) Carmelites, 1939. = A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Century. Vol. 1. London, 1939. Dasxuranc’i, 1961. = History of the Caucasian Albanians of Movsēs Dasxuranc’i. Ed. and tr. Dowsett, Charles. London–New York–Toronto, 1961. (London Oriental Series, Vol. 8.) Dašean, 1895. = C’uc’ak hayerēn jeŗagrac Matenadaranin Mxitareanc’ i Vienna [Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Mechitarist Abbey in Vienna]. Ašx. Dašean, Yakobos. Vienna, 1895. Dawrižec’i, 1896. = Patmut’iwn Aŗak’el vardapeti Dawrižec’woy [History of Aŗak’el Dawrižec’i vardapet]. Vałaršapat, 1896. Drasxanakertac’i, 1987. = Drasxanakertac’i, Yovhannēs: History of Armenia. Ed. and tr. Maksoudian, Krikor. Atlanta, 1987. Dumitrescu–Snagov, 1973. = Românii în arhivele Romei. (Secolul XVII.) Ed. Dumitrescu–Snagov, Ion. Bucharest, 1973. Eganyan, 1970. = C’uc’ak jeŗagrac’ Maštoc’i anvamb Matenadarani [Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Arrmenian National Archive called Mesrop Maštoc’ Matenadaran]. Ašx. Eganyan, Ōhannes. Vols. 1–2. Erewan, 1970.

Published Sources

Ełišē, 1957. = Ełišēi vasn Vardanay ew Hayoc’ paterazmin [Ełišē: On Vardan and the War of the Armenians]. Ašx. Ter-Minasyan, Ełia. Erewan, 1957. Galanus, 1661–1690. = Galanus, Clemens. Conciliatio Ecclesiae Armenae cum Romana. Vol. 1–2. Rome, 1661–1690. Ganjakec’i, 1961. = Ganjakec’i, Kirakos: Patmut’yun Hayoc’ [History of Armenia]. Ašx. Melik’–Ōhanĵanyan, Karen. Erewan, 1961. Garitte, 1952. = La Narratio Rebus de Armeniae. Ed. Garitte, Gérard. Leuven, 1952. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 132. Subs. 4.) Girk’ t’łt’oc’, 1901. = Girk’ T’łt’oc’ [Book of Letters.] Ašx. Izmireanc’, Yakob. Tbilisi/ Tiflis, 1901. Grigor Magistros, 1910. = Grigor Magistrosi t’łt’erĕ [Grigor Magistros’ Letters]. Ašx. Kostaneanc’, Karen. Alexandropol, 1910. Gündisch, 1975. = Urkunden zur Geschichte de Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Hrsg. von Gustav Gündisch. Band V. Cologne–Vienna, 1975. Hakobyan, 1956. = Manr žamanakagrut’yunner XIII–XVII dd [Short Armenian Chronicles in the 13th –17th Centuries]. Ašx. Hakobyan, Vazgen. Vols. 2. Erewan, 1956. Hakobyan– Hovhannisyan, 1974. = Hayeren jeŗagreri XVII dari hišatakaranner [Colophones of Armenian Manuscripts in the 17th Century]. Ašx. Hakobyan, Vazgen.– Hovhannisyan, Aram. Vols. 1–2. Erewan, 1974. HC, 1935. = Hierarchia Catholica medii et recentioris aevi. Ed. Gauchat, Patritius. Vol. 4. (1592–1667). Monasterii/ Münster, 1935. HC, 1952. = Hierarchia Catholica medii et recentioris aevi. Ed. Ritzler, Remigius – Sefrin, Pirminius. Vol. 5. (1667–1730). Patavii/ Padova, 1952. HC, 1958. = Hierarchia Catholica medii et recentioris aevi. Ed. Ritzler, Remigius – Sefrin, Pirminius. Vol. 6. (1730–1799). Patavii/ Padova, 1958. Hofman, 1935. = Documenta Concilii Florentini de Unione Armenorum. Ed. Hofman, Gregor. Rome, 1935. Hofman, 1944. = Epistolae pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum spectantes. Ed. Hofman, Gregor. Vol. 2. Rome, 1944. Ilia, 1730. = Ilia, Andreas. Ortus et progressus variarum in Dacia gentium et religionum. Claudiopoli/ Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1730. Kałankatwac’i, 1983. = Kałankatwac’i, Movēs: Patmut’iwn Ałwanic’ ašxarhi [History of the Albanian Lands in the Caucasus]. Ašx. Aŗak’elyan, Varag. Erewan, 1983. Kanonagirk’, 1964. = Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’ [Canons of the Armenian Apostolic Church]. Ašx. Hakobyan, Vazgen. Vol. 1. Erewan, 1964. Kanonagirk’, 1971. = Kanonagirk’ Hayoc’ [Canons of Armenian Apostolic Church]. Ašx. Hakobyan, Vazgen. Vol. 2. Erewan, 1971. Kanonk’, 1905. = Kanonk’ Dunay Surb Žołovoyn (644) [The Canons of Saint Council in Dwin in 644]. In: Ararat, 1 (1905). 177–205. Katona, 1790. = Katona, Stephanus: Historica critica regum Hungariae stirpis mixtae, ex fide domesticorum et exterorum scriptorum concinnata. Tom. 10. Ord. 3. Budae, 1790.

213

214

Sources and Literature

Koriwn, 1941. = Koriwn: Vark’ Maštoc’i [Life of Saint Mesrop Maštoc’]. Ašx. Abełyan, Mik’ayel. Erewan, 1941. Kovács – Kovács, 2002. = Erdélyi katolikus egyházlátogatási jegyzőkönyvek és okmányok [Roman Catholic Canonical Visitations in Transylvania]. Vol. 1. (1727−1737.) Szerk. Kovács, András – Kovács, Zsolt. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2002. Lastiverc’i, 1963. = Patmut’iwn Aristakisi Lastiverc’woy. [Aristakēs Lastiverc’i’s History.] Ašx. Yuzbašyan, Karen. Erewan, 1963. Magyari, 1994. = II. Rákóczi Ferenc erdélyi hadserege [The Transylvanian Army of Prince Francis Rákóczi II]. Szerk. Magyari, András. Bucharest, 1994. Melik’set-Bek, 1934. = Vrac’ałbyurnerĕ Hayastani ew Hayeri masin [Georgian Sources on Armenian and the Armenians]. Vol. 1. Ašx. Melikset’-Bek, Lewon. Erewan, 1934. Migne, 1834. = Patrologiae cursus completus graeca-latina. Ed. Migne, Jacques-Paul. Vol. 130. Paris, 1834. Nilles, 1885. = Symbolae ad illustrandam historiam ecclesia orientalis in terris Coronae Sancti Stephani. Ed. Nilles, Nicolaus. Vol. 1–2. Innsbruck, 1885. Ōrbēlean, 1859. = Ōrbēlean, Step’anos: Patmut’iwn nahangin Sisakan [History of Armenian Province of Sisakan-Siwnik’]. Ašx. Šahnazarean, Karen. Paris, 1859. P’arpec’i, 1904. = Łazaray P’arpec’woy patmut’iwn Hayoc’ ew t’ułt’ aŗ Vahan Mamikonean [Łazar P’arpec’i: History of Armenia and His Letter Written to Lord Vahan Mamikonean]. Ašx. Tēr- Mkrtič’ean, Geworg – Malxaseanc’, Step’an. Tbilisi, 1904. Pidoux, 1676. = Pidoux, Aloisius: Compendiosa relatio unionis nationis Armeno–Poloniae Sancta Ecclesia Romana ad annum Christi 1676. Rome, 1676. Pray, 1777. = Pray, Georgius: Annales veteres Hunorum, Avarorum Hungarorum. Vienna, 1777. Rákóczi, 1951. = II. Rákóczi Ferenc Emlékiratai [Memoirs of Prince Francis Rákóczi II]. Budapest, 1951. Ŗōšk’ay, 1964. = Step’anos Ŗōšk’ay Žamanakagrut’iwn tarekank’ ekełec’akank’ [Step’anos Ŗōšk’ay’s Chronology as Ecclesiastical Annuals]. Ašx. Oskean, Hamazasp. Vienna, 1964. Sávai, 1993. = Ex tabulario romano Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Ed. Sávai, János. Szeged, 1993. Sávai, 1995. = A székelyföldi katolikus plébániák levéltára [Roman Catholic Parishes’ Archive in Szeklerland]. Vol 1. Szerk. Sávai, János. Szeged, 1995. (Documenta missionaria Hungariam et regionem sub ditione Turcica existentem spectantia, I/II–III.) Sebēos, 1979. = Patmut’iwn Sebēos [History of Bishop Sebēos]. Ašx. Abgaryan, Geworg. Erewan, 1979. Simēon Dpir Lehac’i, 1936. = Dpir Lehac’i, Simēon: Ułegrut’iwn [The Itinary of Simēon Dpir Lehac’i]. Ašx. Akinean, Nersēs. Vienna, 1936. Soós, 1991. = Soós, István: A pozsonyi rendi bizottság tervezete. Az ún. „Magyar Einrichtungswerk” [The Draft of the Special Committee in Bratislava. The So-Called Hungarian Einrichtungswerk]. In: Századok 125 (1991) 5–6 sz. 500–516. p.

Published Sources

Szabó, 1898. = Székely Oklevéltár [Szeklerland’s Cartulary]. Vol. 7. Szerk. Szabó, Károly. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1898. Szádeczky-Kardoss, 1897. = Székely Oklevéltár. [Szeklerland’s Cartulary]. Vol. 6. Szerk. Szádeczky-Kardoss, Lajos. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1897. Szilágyi, 1898. = Erdélyi országgyűlési emlékek [Parlamentary Records in Transylvania]. Vol 21. Szerk. Szilágyi, Sándor. Budapest, 1898. Szögi, 2006. = A Gyulafehérvári Érseki Levéltár és az Erdélyi Katolikus Státus Levéltára I (1429–2000). [The Archbishopric’s Archive in Alba Iulia and the Archive of the Catholic Status in Transylvania, 1429–2000]. (Repertory). Szerk. Szögi, László. Budapest, 2006. Tarōnec’i, 1885. = Step’anosi Tarōnec’woy Asołkan patmut’iwn tiezerakan. [Step’anos Asołik Tarōnec’i’s Universal History]. Ašx. Malxaseanc’, Stepan. Sankt-Petersburg, 1885. Tóth, 1994. = Relationes missionarium de Hungaria et Transylvania (1627–1707). Ed. Tóth, István György. Budapest–Rome, 1994. (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae in Roma – Fontes 1). Tóth, 2002. = Litterae missionarium de Hungaria et Transylvania (1572–1717). Ed. Tóth, István György. Vol. 1–2. Rome–Budapest, 2002. (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae in Roma – Fontes 4.) Tóth, 2005. = Litterae missionarium de Hungaria et Transylvania (1572–1717). Ed. Tóth, István György. Vol. 3–4. Rome–Budapest, 2005. (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae in Roma. – Fontes 4.). Tóth, 2008. = Litterae missionarium de Hungaria et Transylvania (1572–1717). Ed. Tóth, István György. Vol. 5. Rome–Budapest, 2008. (Bibliotheca Academiae Hungariae in Roma. – Fontes 4.). Tüzes, 1900. = Tüzes Gábor emlékirata Magyarország kormányzásáról [Gabriel Tüzes’s Memoirs upon Governing Hungary]. In: Történelmi tár. Új Folyam, 1 (1900). 219–263. p. Uxt’anēs, 1871. = Uxt’anēs episkoposi patmut’iwn Hayoc’. Hatuac erkrord: Patmut’iwn bažanman Vrac’ i Hayoc’ [Bishop Uxt’anēs: History of Armenia. Third Fragment: History of the Ecclesiastical Schism between the Armenian and Georgian Churches]. Vałaršapat, 1871. Van den Oudenrijn, 1960. = Linguae Haicanae scriptores Ord. Praed. Cong. Fratrum Uniatorum et FF. Armenorum. Ed. Van den Oudenrijn, Marcantonio. Bern, 1960. Vardan, 1862. = Hawak’umn patmut’ean Vardanay vardapeti [Historical Collection of Vardan vardapet’s Chronicle]. Venice, 1862. Welikyj, 1954. = Acta S. C. De Propaganda Fide. Ecclesiam catholicam Ucrainiae et Bielarusjae spectantia. Vol. 2. (1667–1710). Ed. Welikyj, Athanasius. Rome, 1954. Welikyj, 1969. = Nuntiorum Apostolicarum historiam Ucrainae illustrantes. Ed. Welikyj, Athanasius. Rome, 1969. Welikyj, 1972. = Litterae episcoporum historiam Ucrainiae illustrantes. Vol. 1. (1600–1640); Vol. 2. (1675–1683). Ed. Welikyj, Athanasius. Rome, 1972. Welikyj, 1974. = Litterae episcoporum historiam Ucrainiae illustrantes. Vol. 3 (1665–1690). Ed. Welikyj, Athanasius. Rome, 1974.

215

216

Sources and Literature

Welikyj, 1976. = Litterae episcoporum historiam Ucrainiae illustrantes. Vol. 4. (1681–1710). Ed. Welikyj, Athanasius. Rome, 1976. Xorenac’i, 1913. = Movsisi Xorenac’woy patmut’iwn Hayoc’. [Movsēs Xorenac’i’s History of Armenia.] Ašx. Abełean, Mik’ayēl – Yarut’iwneanc’, Suren. Tbilisi, 1913. Zimmermann–Werner–Müller, 1902. = Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Band III. Hrsg. von Zimmerman, Franz–Werner, Carl–Müller, Gerhard. Hermannstadt/ Nagyszeben/ Sibiu, 1902. Zimmermann–Werner–Müller, 1937. = Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbürgen. Band IV. Hrsg. von Franz Zimmermann–Carl Werner–Gerhard Müller. Hermannstadt/ Nagyszeben / Sibiu, 1937. Zsoldos, 1990. = Matricula Universitatis Tyrnaviensis. 1635−1701. Ed. Zsoldos, Attila. Budapest, 1990. (Fejezetek az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Történetéből, 11.)

Secondary Literature Abrahamyan, 1964. = Abrahamyan, Ašot: Hamaŗot urvagic hay gałt’avayreri patmut’yan [Short History of teh Armenian Colonies]. Vols. 1–2. Erewan, 1964. Adontz, 1965. = Adontz, Nicholas: Études arméno-byzantines. Lisbon, 1965. Adontz, 1970. = Adontz, Nicholas: Armenia in the Justinian Period: The Political Conditions Based on the Naxarar System. Ed. and. tr.: Garsoïan, Nina. Lisbon, 1970. Akinean, 1917–1918. = Akinean, Nersēs: Azatut’ean šaržumĕ XV–XVI darun Hayoc’ mēĵ. [Liberating Movements in Armenia in 16th and 17th Centuries]. In: Handēs Amsorea, 31–32 (1917–1918). 141–154. Akinean, 1936. = Akinean, Nersēs: Movsēs Tat’ewac’i Hayoc’ Kat’ołikosn ew ir žamanakĕ [Movsēs Tat’ewac’i, the Catholicos of the Armenians and His Pontiff]. Vienna, 1936. Akinean, 1949. = Akinean, Nersēs: Šahapiwani žołovoyn kanonnerĕ. Matenagrakan usumnasirut’iwn aŗt’iw 1500 ameay taredarjin (444–1944) [The Canons of the Ecclesiastical Council in Šahapiwan. Historical Studies on occasion of the Council’s 1500th Anniversary, 444−1944]. In: Handēs Amsorea, 63 (1949). 79–170. Akinean, 1988. = Akinean, Nersēs: P’ot patriark’i t’ułt’akc’ut’iwn Hayoc’ het [The Correpsonding of Photius, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Armenians]. In: Bazmavēp, 146 (1988). 7–39. Ališan, 1896b. = Ališan, Łewond: Hay–Venet kam aŗnč’ut’iwnk’ Hayoc’ ew Veneteac’. [Hay–Venet: History of the Relations between Venice and the Armenians]. Venice, 1896. Ališan, 1901. = Ališan, Łewond: Hayapatum. [Armenian History]. Venice, 1901. Alpōyačean, 1936. = Alpōyačean, Aram: Grigor Kesarac’i Patriark’ ew ir žamanakĕ [Patriarch Grigor Kesarac’i and His Age]. Jerusalem, 1936. Amadouni, 1968. = Amadouni, Grigor: L’autocéphalie du katholikat arménien. In: Orientalia Christiana Analecta (I patriarcati orientali nel primo millennio), 181 (1968). 137−178.

Secondary Literature

Ananean, 1988. = Ananean, Pōłos: P’ot patriark’i t’łt’akc’ut’iwnĕ hayoc’ het. [Patriarch Photius’s Corresponding with the Armenians.] In: Bazmavēp, 1988. 7–39. Ananean, 1989. = Ananean, Pōłos: P’ot patriark’i t’łt’akc’ut’iwnĕ hayoc’ het. Širakawani žołovk’ĕ. [Patriarch Photius’s Corresponding with the Armenians: The Council of Širakawan.] In: Bazmavēp, (1989). 37–63. Ananean, 1990. = Ananean, Pōłos: P’ot patriark’in namakĕ Ašot išxanin. [Patriarch Photius’s Letter Written to Prince Ašot of Armenia.] In: Bazmavēp, 1990. 7–23. Ananean, 1992. = Ananean, Pōłos: Grigorios Vkayasēr ew hay–hŗomakan yaraberut’iwnerĕ [Catholicos Gregory, the Confessor and the Armenian-Roman Ecclesiastical Relations]. In: Bazmavēp, (1992). 7–30. Anassean, 1956. = Anassean, Armen: Ditołut’iwnĕ Stefanos Salmastec’u kensagrut’ean verabereal. [Treatise upon the Biography of Armenian Catholicos, Stephen V Salmastec’i]. In: Ēǰmiacin, 12 (1956). 93–99. Arpee, 1946. = Arpee, Alex: History of Armenian Christianity. New York, 1946. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980a. = Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Viada: Armjani-Xalkedonty na vostočnyx granicax Vizantijskoĭ Impreii (XI. v.). Yerevan, 1980. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1980b. = Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Viada: Sur la problème des provinces byzantines orientales. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. (= Nouvelle Série) 14 (1980). 157–168. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, 1992. = Arutjunova-Fidanjan, Viada: Les Arméniens chalcédoins en tant que phénomène culturel de l’Orient chrétien. In: Atti del quinto simposio internazionale di arte armena. A cura di Zekiyan, Lewon, Boghos. Venice, 1992. 463–477. Atamian, 1982. = Atamian, Ani: Cilician-Roman Church-Union In: Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Ed. Streyer, John. Vol. 3. Cabala–Crimea. New York, 1982. 394–395. Ávedik, 1904. = Ávedik, Lukács: Az örmény kereszténység eredete [The Origin of the Armenian Christianity]. Elisabethopolis/ Erzsébetváros, 1904. Ávedik, 1896. = Ávedik, Lukács: Szabad királyi Erzsébetváros monográfiája [Monography of Free Royal City of Elisabethopolis]. Armenopolis/ Szamosújvár, 1896. Baán, 2003. = Baán, István: La pénétration de l’uniatisme en Ukraine subcarpatique au XVIIe siècle. In: XVIIe siècle, 55 (2003). 515–526. Baán, 2005. = Baán, István: Greek-speaking Hierarchs on a Ruthenian See: the Diocese of Munkács (Mukačevo) in the Subcarpathian Region at the end of the 17th century. In: Ukraine’s Re-integration into Europe: a Historical, Historiogeographical and Political Urgent Issue. Ed. Brogi-Bercoff, George–Lami, George. Alessandria, 2005. 97–107. Baán, 2007. = Baán, István: Adalékok a jezsuiták tevékenységéhez a magyarországi rutének uniója terén [Data upon the Jesuit Fathers’ Role in the Church-Union of the Ruthenians]. In: Historicus Societatis Iesu. Szilas László Emlékkönyv. Szerk. Molnár, Antal–Szilágyi, Csaba – Zombori, István. Budapest, 2007. (METEM Könyvek, 62.) 118–129. p. Baán, 2008. = Baán István: The Process of Dispensation of Péter Parthenus, Greek Rite Bishop of Munkács (Mukačevo). In: Gli archivi della Santa Sede e il regno d’Ungheria (secc.

217

218

Sources and Literature

15–20.) In memoriam di Lajos Pásztor. A cura di Gaetano Plataia – Matteo Sanfilippo – Péter Tusor. Budapest – Rome, 2008. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, Vol. 4.) 113–132. Baán, 2012. = Baán, István: Teofánisz Mavrogordátosz (1626−1688) paronaxiai metropolita, munkácsi adminisztrátor [Theofanis Mavrogordatos (1626−1688), Metropolite of Paronaxia, Adminsitrator of the Byzantine/ Greek Catholic Diocese in Mukačevo]. Nyíregyháza, 2012. (Collectanea Athanasiana, II. Textus/ Fontes, Vol. 3.) Balla, 2013. = Balla, Lóránt: Jezsuita „Ál/Arc” és „Ál/Név” a kora újkori Erdélyben [Jesuit Incognition in the Early Modern Transylvania]. In: „Irtam a’ magam Tanuloházatskámban.” Res Litteraria Transylvaniae Vetus Irodalom- és Művelődéstörténeti Műhely fiatal kutatóinak tanulmányai. Szerk. Köllő Zsófia. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2013. 11−47. Balla, 2017. = Balla, Lóránt: Csete István kéziratos prédikációi és Gyalogi János-féle kiadásai: Eredetiség, fordítás, közvetítés a kora-újkori jezsuita prédikációkban. [Father István Csete’s Predications kept in form of Manuscripts and Their Editions by János Gyalogi. Authenticity, Translation and Broadcasting in the Early-Modern Jesuit Teachings]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2017. (Doktori dolgozatok, 20.) Bartikian, 1971. = Bartikian, Hratch: La conquête de l’Arménie per l’Empire byzantin. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 8 (1971). 327–340. Bärthelmass, 1897. = Bärthelmass, Martin: Die Ausweisung der Armenier aus Bistritz in Folge der Pest im Jahre 1712. In: Programm des evangelischen Obergymansiums (...). Bistritz, 1897. 5–17. Bárány, 1888a. = Bárány, Lukács: Verzirescul Auxendius. I. In: Arménia, 4 (1888) No. 3. 65–71. Bárány, 1888b. = Bárány, Lukács: Verzirescul Auxendius. II. In: Arménia, 4 (1888) No. 4. 101–106. Bárány, 1888c. = Bárány, Lukács: Verzirescul Auxendius. III. In: Arménia, 4 (1888) No. 5. 137–142. Beke, 1870. = Beke, Antal: Az erdélyi egyházmegyei papnövelde történeti vázlata [The Historical Sketch of the Seminar in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Transylvania]. Gyulafehérvár/ Alba Iulia, 1870. Benda−Tóth, 1994. = Benda, Kálmán−Tóth, István György: A jezsuiták mecsetje. (Egy forráskiadvány margójára.) [The Jesuites’ Mosque. Critical Comments to a Published Sources’ Edition]. In: Budapesti Könyvszemle (BUKSZ), 6 (1994). 20−25. Bernád – Kovács, 2011. = Bernád, Rita – Kovács, Bálint: A Szamosújvári Örmény Katolikus Gyűjtőlevéltár: Repertórium. [The Armenian Catholic Collective Archive in Armenopolis. Repertory.] Budapest – Gyulafehérvár/ Alba Iulia − Leipzig, 2011. (Erdélyi Római Katolikus Levéltárak; 4.) Bíró, 1925. = Bíró, Vince: Az impériumváltozás kora (1690–1716) [The Period of Political Power’s Change]. In: Az erdélyi katholicizmus multja és jelene [The Past and Present of the Catholicism in Transylvania]. Dicsőszentmárton/ Târnăveni, 1925. 104–124. p. Bíró, 1935. = Bíró, Vince: Altorjai Gróf Apor István és kora [Baillif Stephen Apor of Altorja and His Age]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1935. (Az Erdélyi Katolikus Akadémia Kiadványai 10.)

Secondary Literature

Bíró–Boros, 1941. = Erdélyi katolikus nagyok [Great Catholic Persons in Transylvania]. Szerk. Bíró, Vince–Boros, Fortunát. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1941. Blažejovskyj, 1975. = Blažejovskyj, Dimitriy: Ukrainian and Armenian Pontificial Seminaries of Lvïv. Rome, 1975. Bottlik, 1997. = Bottlik, József: Hármas kereszt alatt [Under the Three-Fold Cross]. Budapest, 1997. Bournoutian, 2011. = Bournoutian, Georges: A Fresh Look At the Causes of Decline of the Armenian Colonies in Poland. In: Series Byzantina. Studies on Byzantine and PostByzantine Art. Vol. 9. Ed. Deluga, Waldemar. Warsaw, 2011. 145−150. Bozoyan, 1995. = Bozoyan, Azat: Hay-byuzandakan ekełec’akan banakc’ut’yunneri vaveragrerĕ [Documents on Historical Relation between the Armenian and Byzantine Churches]. Erewan, 1995. Bžškeanc’, 1830. = Bžškeanc’, Minas: Čanap’arhordut’iwn i Lehastan [A Journey in Poland]. Venice, 1830. Č’amč’eanc’, 1786. = Č’amč’eanc’, Mik’ayēl: Patmut’iwn Hayoc’ i skzbanē ašxarhi minč’ew c’amn 1784 [History of Armenia from Creation of World till the Year of 1784]. Vols. 1–3. Venice, 1786. Charanis, 1963. = Charanis, Peter: The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire. Lisbon, 1963. Conybeare, 1898. = Conybeare, Frederick: The Armenian Canons of St. Sahak Catholicos of Armenia (390–439). In: American Journal of Theology, 2 (1898). 828–848. Csala, 2004. = Csala, Rita: A Gyulafehérvári Érseki és Főkáptalani Levéltár története és mai állapota [The History and Present Status of Archbishopric’s and Arch-Prebendal’s Archive in Alba Iulia]. In: Levéltári Szemle, 20 (2004) No. 2. 60–67. Cziple, 1910. = Cziple, Sándor: A máramarosi püspökség kérdése [The Question of the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Epsicopacy in Máramaros]. Budapest, 1910. Dan, 1891. = Dan, Demeter: Arewelean Hayk’ i Bukovina. [Eastern Armenians in Bucowina]. Vienna, 1891. Darrouzès, 1971. = Darrouzès, Jean: Deux lettres inédites de Photius aux arméniens. In: Revue des études byzantines, 19 (1971). 137–153. De Guibert, 1919. = De Guibert, Jean: Le decrét du Concile de Florence pour les Arméniens; sa valeur Dogmatique. In: Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique, 20 (1919). 81–95. 150–162. 195–215. Dell’Orto, 1995. = Dell’ Orto, Umberto: La nunziatura a Vienna di Giuseppe Garampi. 1776–1785. Vatican City, 1995. (Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 39.) De Vries, 1998. = De Vries, Wilhelm: L’Unione dei rumeni (1697–1701). In: Transylvanian Review, 6 (1998). 3–26. Dédéyan, 1990. = Dédéyan, Gérard: Les Arméniens: Histoire d’une Chrétienité. Toulouse, 1990. Dorfmann-Lazarev, 2004. = Dorfmann-Lazarev, Igor: Arméniens et byzantins à l’époque de Photius: deux débats théologiques après le triomphe de l’orthodoxie. Leuven, 2004. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 609; Subs., Tom. 117.)

219

220

Sources and Literature

Drost-Abgarjan – Kovács – Márti, 2011. = Armenuhi, Drost-Abgarjan – Bálint, Kovács – Tibor, Martí: Catalogue of the Armenian Library in Elisabethopolis. Leipzig − Eger, 2011. (Armenian Cultural Heritage in the Carpathian Basin; Vol. 1.) Erdélyi, 1902. = Erdélyi, Károly: Bzensky Rudolf 1651–1715. In: Erdélyi Múzeum, 12 (1902). 183–190. Éble, 1915. = Éble, Gábor: A szamosújvári Verzár család [The History of Verzár/ Virziresco Family in Armenopolis]. Budapest, 1915. Farrugia, 2000. = Dizionaro enciclopedico dell’ oriente cristiano. A cura di Farrugia Edward S.J. Rome, 2000. Fáraó, 1888. = Fáraó, Simon: A szépvízi örmény telep [The Armenian Colony in Frumoasa]. In: Arménia, 4 (1888) No. 2. 47–51. Fazekas, 2003. = Fazekas, István: A bécsi Pazmaneum magyarországi hallgatói 1623–1918 (1951) [The Hungarian Students at Seminar called Pazmaneum in Vienna, 1623−1918]. Budapest, 2003. Fazekas, 2002. = Fazekas, István: A Pázmáneum története az alapítástól a jozefinizmus koráig (1623–1784) [The Hsitory of Seminar called Pazmenanem from the Begining to the Period of Josephinism, 1623−1784]. In: A bécsi Pázmáneum [The Seminary called Pazmaneum in Vienna]. Szerk. Zombori, István. Budapest, 2002. Ferro, 2005. = Ferro, Teresa: I Missionari Cattolici in Moldavia. Studi storici e linguistici. Cluj–Napoca, 2005. Fraknói, 1895. = Fraknói, Vilmos: A magyar királyi kegyúri jog Szent Istvántól Mária Teréziáig [The Hungarian Rulers’ Supreme Patronation Right from King Saint Stephen I to Queen Maria-Theresa]. Budapest, 1895. Galla, 1942–1945. = Galla, Ferenc: A püspökjelöltek kánoni kivizsgálásának jegyzőkönyvei a Vatikáni Levéltárban. A magyar katolikus megújhódás korának püspökei [The Acts of Canonical Investigations of Candidates for the Bishopric Sees in the Vatican’s Secret Archive. The Bishops of the Hungarian Catholic Renewal’s Period]. In: Levéltári Közlemények, 20–23 (1942–1945) 141–186. Galla, 2005. = Galla, Ferenc: Ferences misszionáriusok Magyarországon: a Királyságban és Erdélyben [Franciscan Missionaries in Hungary: in the Kingdom and Transylvania]. Sajtó alá rendezte Fazekas István. Budapest–Rome, 2005. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, 2.) Galla, 2010. = Galla, Ferenc: Pápai kinevezések, megbízások és felhatalmazások Erdély, a Magyar Királyság és a Hódoltság területére (1550–1711) [The Roman Pope’s Appointments, Authorities and Charges in Transylvania, Hungarian Kingdom and Ottoman Occupied Hungarian Territory, 1550−1711] Sajtó alá rendezte: Tusor, Péter – Tóth, Krisztina. Budapest–Rome, 2010. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, 3.) Galla, 2015. = Galla, Ferenc: Pálos missziók Magyarországon a 17−18. században [The Pauline Missions in Hungary in the 17th and 18th Centuries]. Sajtó alá rendezte: Fazekas, István. Budapest−Rome, 2015. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, 11.)

Secondary Literature

Garda, 1992. = Garda, Dezső: Gyergyó a történelmi idő vonzásában [The Transylvanian Region called Gheorghen with Rergards to the Historical Time]. Székelyudvarhely/ Odorheiu Seciuesc, 1992. Garda, 2007. = Garda, Dezső. A gyergyószentmiklósi örmény céhek és társulatok a 18. században és a 19. század első felében [The Armenian Guilds and Corporation in Gheorgheni in the 18th Century and the First Half of the 19th Century]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpahtian Basin II]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2007. (Művelödéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 227–257. Garda, 2010. = Garda, Dezső: A törvényhozó örmény közösség. A Merkantile Fórum iratai [The Legislatory Armenian Community in Transylvania. The Documemt of Mercantile Forum]. Vol. 1. Csíkszereda/ Mircerea Ciuc, 2010. Garitte, 1946. = Garitte, Gérard: Documents pour l’étude du livre d’Agathange. Vatican City, 1946. (Studi e Testi, 127.) Garitte, 1959. = Garitte, Gérard: Une petite florilège dyophysite grec traduit de l’arménien. In: Studia Biblica et Orientalia, 3 (1959). 102−112. Garsoïan, 1967. = Garsoïan, Nina: Politique ou orthodoxie? L’Arménie au quatrième siècle. In: Revue des études arménienne, N. S. 4 (1967). 297–320. Garsoïan, 1969. = ’Quidam Narsaeus’: A Note on the Mission of Saint Nersēs the Great. In: Armeniaca. Venice, 1969. 148–164. Garsoïan, 1971. = Garsoïan, Nina: Armenia in the Fourth Century: An Attempt to Redefine the Concepts ’Armenia’ and ’Loyalty’. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 8 (1971). 341–352. Garsoïan, 1973. = Garsoïan, Nina: Le rôle de la hiérarchie chrétienne dans les rapports diplomatiques entre Byzance et les Sassanides. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 10 (1973). 119–138. Garsoïan, 1976. = Garsoïan, Nina: Prologomena to a Study of the Iranian Elements in Arsacid Armenia. In: Handēs Amsorea, 90 (1976). 177–234. Garsoïan, 1983a. = Garsoïan, Nina: Secular Jurisdiction over the Armenian Church. (IVth–VIIth centuries). In: Essays presented to Ihor Sevchenko. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 7 (1983). 220–250. Garsoïan, 1983b. = Garsoïan, Nina: Nersēs le Grand, Basile de Césarée et Eustathe de Sébaste. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 17 (1983). 145–167. Garsoïan, 1987. = Garsoïan, Nina: The Enigmatic Figure of Bishop Šahak of Manazkert. In: Handēs Amsorea, 101 (1987). 883–895. Garsoïan, 1988. = Garsoïan, Nina: The Presence of the ’Armenian’ Bishops at the First Five Oecumenical Councils. In: Essays Presented to Joan Hussey on her Eightieth Birthday. Ed. Chrisostomides, John. Camberley, 1988. 134–147. Garsoïan, 1992. = Garsoïan, Nina: Quelques précisions préliminaires sur le schisme entre les Églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine: III. Les évêchés

221

222

Sources and Literature

méridionaux limitrophes de la Mésopotamie. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 23 (1992). 39–80. Garsoïan, 1996. = Garsoïan, Nina: Quelques précisions préliminaire sur le schisme entre églises byzantine et arménienne au sujet du concile de Chalcédoine: II. La date et les circonstances de la rupture. In: L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture. Paris, 1996. (Byzantina Sorboniensia, 12.) 99−112. Garsoïan, 1997. = Garsoïan, Nina: The Arab Invasions and the Rise of the Bagratuni. In: The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times. Ed. Hovhannisian, Richard. Vol. 1. New York, 1997. 117–142. Garsoïan, 1998. = Garsoïan, Nina: The Problem of Armenian Integration into the Byzantine Empire. In: Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire. Eds. Hélène Ahrweiler–Angeliki Lalou. Dumbarton Oaks, 1998. 53–124. Garsoïan, 1999. = Garsoïan, Nina: L’Église arménienne et le grand schisme d’Orient. Leuven, 1999. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Vol. 574.; Subs. Tom. 10.) Gazdovits, 2006. = Gazdovits, Miklós: Az erdélyi örmények története [History of the Armenians in Transylvania]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2006. Gay, 1904. = Gay, Jean: La Pape Clement VI. et les affaires d’Orient. Paris, 1904. Ghitta, 2001. = Ghitta, Ovidiu: Naşterea unei biserici. Biserica greco–catolică di Sătmar în primul ei secol de existenţa (1667–1761). Cluj–Napoca, 2001. Gill, 1959. = Gill, John: The Council of Florence. Cambridge, 1959. Gopcsa, 1895. = Gopcsa, László. A magyarországi örményekről [Concerning the Armenians in Hungary]. In: Erdélyi Múzeum (1895) No. 12. 375–382. Govrikean, 1896. = Govrikean, Grigor: Ełizabēt’opol. Dransilwanoy Hayoc’ metropolisĕ [Elisabethoplis. The Metropol City of the Armenians in Transylvania]. Vienna, 1896. Greenwood, 2002. = Greenwood, Tim: Sassanian Echoes and Apocalyptic Expectations: a Re-Evaluation pf the Armenian History attributed to Sebēos. In: Le Muséon, 115 (2002) No. 1−2. 323−397. Grigorian, 1980. = Grigorian, Vardan: Istorija armjanskih kolonij Ukrajni i Pol’ši. (Armjane v Podolii). Yerevan, 1980. Grumel, 1956. = Grumel, Venance: L’envoyé du Photius au catholicos Zacharie: Jean de Nikè. In: Revue des études byzantines, N. S. 14 (1956). 169–173. Gyárfás, 1925. = Gyárfás, Elemér: Az erdélyi románok uniója s a román görög katholikus szervezet kifejlődése [The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania and the Development of the Romanian Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church]. In: Az erdélyi katholicizmus múltja és jelene [The Past and Present of the Catholicism in Transylvania]. Dicsőszentmárton/ Târnăveni, 1925. 125–146. Hakobyan, 1965. = Hakobyan, Vazgen: Le date de l’avènement d’Ašot. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 2 (1965). 273–282. Halecki, 1993. = Halecki, Oscar: Európa millenniuma [The Millenium of Europe]. Tr. Bérczes, Tibor. Budapest, 1993. Halecki, 1958. = Halecki, Oscar: From Florence to Brest. Rome, 1958.

Secondary Literature

Heckenast, 2005. = Heckenast, Gusztáv: Ki kicsoda a Rákóczi-szabadságharcban [Who is Who in the Rakóczi’s War of Liberation]? Sajtó alá rendezte, kiegészítette és az előszót írta: Mészáros, Kálmán. Budapest, 2005. (História Könyvtár. Kronológiák, Adattárak, 8.) Hermann, 1973. = Hermann, Egyed: A katolikus egyház története Magyarországon [History of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary]. Munnich, 1973. (Dissertationes Hungaricae ex Historia Ecclesiae, I.) Hodinka, 1909. = Hodinka, Antal: A munkácsi görög-katholikus püspökség története [The History of the Byzantine (Greek) Catholic Church in Mukačevo] Budapest, 1909. Hodinka, 1912. = Hodinka, Antal: A tokaji görög kereskedőtársulat kiváltságának az ügye 1725–1772 [The Case of the Greek Merchant Society’s Privilege in Tokaj, 1725−1772]. Budapest, 1912. Hodinka, 1943. = Hodinka, Antal: Az ipeki szerb pátriárka Magyarországon való állandó letelepedésre adomány Levelet kér I. Lipót királytól. [The Serbian Patriarch of Peč/ Ipek Begs for Charter from King Leopold I to Settle Down Stationary in Hungary]. Pécs, 1943. Hofman, 1935. = Hofman, Gregor: Il Vicariato Apostolico di Constantinapoli. (1453−1830). Rome, 1935. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 103.) Hofman, 1939. = Hofman, Gregor: Die Einigung der armenischen Kirche. In: Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 5 (1939) No.1. 151–185. Horváth – Lupták – Monok – Nagy, 2018. = Mária M. Horváth – Annamária Lupták – István Monok – Kornél Nagy: Catalogue oft he Armenian Library in Csíkszépvíz/ Frumoasa. Books Printed before 1851 and Manuscripts. Eger, 2018. (Armenian Cultural Heritage in the Carpathian Basin, 2.) Iványi, 1971. = Iványi, Emma: Esterházy Pál nádor és a magyar rendek tervezete az ország új berendezkedésével kapcsolatban [Palatine Paul Esterhazy’s and Hungarian Orders’ Draft concerning the New Constitutional System of the Hungarian Kingdom]. In: Levéltári Közlemények, 42 (1971) No. 1. 137–160. Iványi, 1987. = Iványi, Emma: „Magyar Einrichtungswerk” [The Hungarian Einrichtunsgswerk]. In: Gazdaság és mentalitás Magyarországon a török kiűzésének idején [Economy and Mentality in Hungary during the Period of Liberation under Ottoman-Turk Conquest]. Szerk. Praznovszky, Mihály–Bagyinszky, Istvánné. Salgótarján, 1987. 159–180. (Discussiones Neogradienses, 4.) Iványi, 1991. = Iványi, Emma: Esterházy Pál nádor közigazgatási tevékenysége (1681–1713) [Palatine Pál Esterházy’s Administrative Activity, 1681−1713]. Budapest, 1991. (A Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadványai, III: Hatóság- és hivataltörténet.) Jakab, 1944. = Jakab, Antal. Az erdélyi római katolikus püspöki szék betöltésének vitája a XVII. században [The Disputes over the Vacancy of the Roman Catholic Bishopric See in Transylvania in the 18th Century]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1944. (Erdélyi Tudományos Füzetek, 172.) Kalmár, 1991. = Kalmár, János: A Kollonich-féle Einrichtungswerk és a 18. századi bánsági berendezkedés kérdése [Cardinal Leopold Kollonich’s Einrichtunsgwerk and the Question

223

224

Sources and Literature

of the Banate’s Administration in the 18th Century]. In: Századok, 125 (1991) No. 5–6. 489–499. Karácsonyi, 1985. = Karácsonyi, János: Magyarország egyháztörténete [Ecclesiastical History of Hungary]. Budapest, 1985. (2nd edition.) Kévorkian, 1981. = Kévorkian, Raymond Haroutioun: L’imprimerie Surb Ēǰmiacin et Surb Sargis Zōrawar et le conflict entre arméniens et catholiques a Constantinople. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 15 (1981). 401–438. Kévorkian, 1982. = Kévorkian, Raymond Haroutioun: Le livre imprimé aux XVIe−XVIIe siècles. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 16 (1982). 345−356. Kévorkian, 1983. = Kévorkian, Raymond Haroutioun: Livre missionaire et enseignement catholique chez les Arméniens, 1583–1700. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 17 (1983). 572–595. Kévorkian, 1985. = Kévorkian, Raymond Haroutioun: Documents archives français sur le Patriarcat arménien de Constantinople (1701–1714). In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 19 (1985). 351–370. Knapp–Tóth, 2005. = Catalogus Librorum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Universitatis R. Scientiarum. Ed. Knapp, Éva–Tóth, Péter. Budapest, 2005. Kogean, 1961. = Kogean, Stepan: Hayoc’ Ekełec’in minč’ew P’lorentean žołovĕ [The Armeninan Church untill the Council of Florence]. Beirut, 1961. Kogean, 1981. = Kogean, Stepan: Hamaŗot patmut’iwn hay-latin yaraberut’eanc’ skizbēn minč’ew 1382. [History of the Amenian and Latin Relations from the Beginning to the Year of 1382]. Antelias–Beirut, 1981. K’olanĵian, 1962. = K’olanĵian, Suren: Geŗla hayak’ałak’ ew nra hayeren jeragreri žołovacun [Armenopolis-Gherla, the Armenian City and its Collection of Armenian Manuscripts]. In: Banber Matenadarani, 6 (1962). No. 2. 499–531. K’olanĵian, 1967. = K’olanĵian, Suren: Les Arméniens en Transylvanie en Xe-XVIIIe siècle. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 4 (1967). 355–376. K’olanĵian, 1983. = K’olanĵian, Suren: Hayeri masnakc’utyunĕ hakat’urk’akan ligayi stełcman ev Hungariayi azatagrman gorcum (XVII d.). [The Armenians’ Participation in the Creation of Ligue againt the Ottoman-Turks and Liberation of Hungary (17th Century)]. In: Hay-hungarakan patmakan ev mšakuyt’ayin kaperi patmut’yunic’ [From the History of Armenian and Hungarian Cultural Relations]. Ašx. Barxudaryan, Vladimir–Vörös, Antal. Erewan, 1983. 105–127. Kollányi, 1900. = Kollányi, Ferenc: Esztergomi kanonokok 1000–1900 [The Prebends of Esztergom, 1000−1900]. Esztergom, 1900. Kosáry, 1996. = Kosáry, Domokos: Művelődés a XVIII. századi Magyarországon [Culture in the 18th-Century Hungary] Budapest, 1996. (Fourth Edition.) Kouyumjian, 1994. = Kouyumjian, Dickran: From Disintegration to Integration: Armenians at the Start of the Modern Era XVI−XVII Centuries. In: Revue de monde arménien modern et contemporain, 1 (1994). 9−18.

Secondary Literature

Kovács, 2006. = Kovács, Bálint: Az erdélyi örmény katolikus egyház és a Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide a 18. század első évtizedeiben [The Armenian Catholic Church in Transylvania and Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in the First Half of the 18th Century]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2006. (Művelődéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 1.) 47–68. Kovács, 2007. = Kovács, Bálint: Az erdélyi örmények interregionális kulturális kapcsolatai a 17–18. században [The Armenians’ Interregional Relations in Transylvania in 17th and 18th Century]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében [Armenians in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2007. (Művelődéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 30–46. Kovács, 2008. = Kovács, Bálint: A galíciai örmények hagyatéka Varsóban [The Legacy of the Armenians of Galicia in Warsaw]. In: Látó – Szépirodalmi Folyóirat, 19 (2008). No. 4. 53–66. Kovács, 2010. = Kovács, Bálint: Az irodalom és vallás kulturális közvetítő szerepe az erdélyi örmények integrációja során a 18. században [The Intermediary Roles of Literature and Religion in the Integration of the Armenians in Transylvania in the 18th Century]. Doktori (Ph.D.) értekezés [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar. Történettudományi Doktori Iskola. Újkori Eszmetörténeti Műhely. Piliscsaba, 2010. Kovács, 2013. = Bálint, Kovács: Armenian Book Culture and Armenian Literary Treasures in the Carpathian Basin. In: Far Away from Mount Ararat. Armenian Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Eds. Bálint, Kovács – Emese, Pál. Budapest, 2013. 53−63. Kowalsky–Metzler, 1983. = Kowalsky, Nikolaus–Metzler, Johannes: Inventory of the Historical Archives of the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples „de Propaganda Fide”. Rome, 1983. (Studia Urbaniana.) Kölönte, 1910. = Kölönte, Béla: Gyergyó története a kialakulástól a határőrség szervezéséig [History of Transylvanian Region called Gheorgheni from the Beginning to Organisation of Border Guards]. Gyergyószentmiklós/ Gheorgheni, 1910. Krikorian, 2003. = Mesrop, K. Krikorian: Calcedonia: storia, conflitti cristologici e reconciliazione. In: Il Concilio di Calcedonia 1550 anni dopo. A cura di Antonio Ducay. Vatican City, 2003. (Pontificia Università della Santa Croce.) 114−137. Kristó–Barta–Gergely, 2002. = Kristó, Gyula–Barta, János–Gergely, Jenő: Magyarország története az előidőktől 2000-ig [History of Hungary from the Ancient Times to the Year of 2000]. Budapest, 2002. Lacko, 1955. = Lacko, Michael: Unio Užhorodiensis Ruthenorum Carpaticorum cum Ecclesia Catholica. Rome, 1955. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 143.) Lukácsy, 1859. = Lukácsy, Christophorus: Historia Armenorum Transsilvaniae a primordiis usque nostram memoriam e fontibus authenticis et documentis antea ineditis elaborata. Vienna, 1859.

225

226

Sources and Literature

Lukácsy, 1867. = Lukácsy, Kristóf: Adalékok az erdélyi örmények történetéhez [Data upon the History of the Armenians in Transylvania]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1867. Macler, 1927. = Macler, François: Rapport sur une mission scientifique en Galicie et en Bukovine. In: Revue des études armeniénnes, 7 (1927). 11–117. Mahé, 1993. = Mahé, Jean-Pierre: L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066. In: Histoire du christianisme. Ed. Dagron, Gilbert. Vol. IV. Paris, 1993. 420–532. Mahé, 1994–1995. = Mahé, Jean-Pierre: La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 25 (1994–1995). 429–438. Mahé, 1996. = Mahé, Jean-Pierre: La rupture arméno-géorgienne au debut du VIIe siècle et les reécritures historiographiques des IXe–Xe siècles. In: Il Caucaso: Cerniera fra culture dal Mediterraneo alla Persia (Secoli IV–VIII). Settimane di studio del Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medievo 42. Vol. 2. A cura di Medestò, Enrico. Spoleto, 1996. 927–961. Maksoudian, 1982. = Maksoudian, Krikor: Armenian Church, Doctrines and Councils. In: Dictionary of the Middle Ages. Aachen–Augustinism. Ed. Strayer, Josesph. Vol. 1. New York, 1982. 498–502. Mardirossian, 1998–2000. = Mardirossian, Aram: Les canons du synode de Partaw (768). In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 27 (1998–2000). 117–134. Mauer, 1887. = Mauer, Joseph: Cardinal Leopold Graf Kollonich, Primas von Ungarn. Sein Leben und sein Wirken. Innsbruck, 1887. Mercier–Mahé, 1981. = Mercier, Charles – Mahé, Jean-Pierre: Les canons des conciles oecuméniques et locaux en version arménienne. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 15 (1981). 187–262. Merza, 1913. = Merza, Gyula: Az örmény betelepülés története Magyarországon és a szamosújvári örmény katholikus püspöki, illetőleg vikáriusi szék [The History of the Armenians’ Settling Down in Hungary and the Bishopric’s and Vicar’s See in Armenopolis]. Vác, 1913. Merza, 1902. = Merza, Gyula: Az örmény püspökség [The Armenian Bishopric]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1902. Mesrop Vardapet, 1957. = Kiwlesserean, Mesrop Vardapet: Patmut’iwn hay ekełec’ii [The History of the Armenian Apostolic Church]. Beirut, 1957. Meyendorff, 1992. = Meyendorff, John: L’aphtardocétisme en Arménie: un imbroglio doctrinal et poltique. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 23 (1992). 27–37. Meyendorff, 2001. = Meyendorff, John: Birodalmi egység és keresztény szakadások [Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions]. Ford. Utry, Gergely. Budapest, 2001. Mihalik, 2017. = Mihalik, Béla Vilmos: Papok, polgárok, konvertiták. Katolikus megújhódás az egri egyházmegyében (1670−1699) [Priests, Citizens, Converted Ones. The Catholic Renewal in the Diocese of Eger, 1670−1699]. Budapest, 2017. (Magyar Történelmi Emlékek. Értekezések.) Miron, 2004. = Miron, Greta Monica: Biserica greco-catolică din Transilvania. Cler şi enoriaşi (1697–1782). Cluj–Napoca, 2004.

Secondary Literature

Molnár, 1992. = Molnár, Antal: Olasz minoriták a XVII. századi Felső-Magyarországon [Italian Minorite Fathers in the 17th -Century-Upper-Hungary]. In: Aetas, (1992) No. 3. 44–77. Molnár, 2001. = Molnár, Antal: Rudolf Bzenszky SJ (1651–1715) ein tschechischer Missionar und Geschichtschreiber in Siebenbürgen. In: Lesestoffe und kulturelles Niveau des nideren Klerus. Hrsg. von Monok, István. Szeged, 2001. 67–78. Molnár, 2002. = Molnár, Antal: Katolikus missziók a hódolt Magyarországon [Catholic Missions in the Ottoman-Turk’s Occupied Hungary]. Vol. 1. (1572–1647). Budapest, 2002. (Humanizmus és reformáció, 26.) Molnár, 2007. = Molnár, Antal: Bzensky Rudolf jezsuita történetíró és az erdélyi örmények [Rudolf Bzensky, the Jesuit Chronicler and the Armenians in Transylvania]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2007. (Művelődéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 18–28. Molnár, 2009. = Molnár, Antal: Lehetetlen küldetés? Jezsuiták Erdélyben és FelsőMagyarországon a 16–17. században [Mission Impossible? Jesuits in Transylvania and Upper-Hungary in 16th and 17th Centuries]. Budapest, 2009. (TDI Könyvek, 8.) Mutafian, 2018. = Claude, Mutafian: La Saga des Arméniens de l’Ararat aux Carpates. Paris, 2018. Nagy, 2006a. = Nagy, Kornél: Stefano Stefanowicz Roszka koadjutori kinevezése [Stefano Stewanowicz Roszka’s Bishop Enthronement]. In: Örmény diaszpóra Kárpát-medencében [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2006. (Művelödéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 1.) 39–46. Nagy, 2006b. = Nagy, Kornél: Vardan Hunanean łwówi uniált érsek levele 1686-ból a lengyelországi és az erdélyi örményekről [The Letter of Vardan Hunanean, Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv, on the Armenians in Poland and Transylvania from 1686]. In: Századok, 140 (2006) No. 4. 1007–1019. Nagy, 2007a. = Nagy, Kornél: Errores et abusus inter Armenos Transilvaniae vigentes 1719-ből és a khalkedónizmus kérdése [The Document Errores et abusus inter Armenos Transilvaniae vigentes from 1719 and the Problem of Chalcedonism]. In: Örmény diszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2007. (Művelődéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 156–169. Nagy, 2007b. = Nagy, Kornél: The Armenians in Transylvania and the Holy Congregation for the Propagation of Faith: Oxendio Virziresco, Missionary Bishop of the Armenians. In: AIEA (= Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes) Newsletter, 43 (2007). December/Décembre. 7–12. Nagy, 2008a. = Nagy, Kornél: Emlékirat az erdélyi örmények egyházáról. (Az 1693. évi Fidelis relatio) [A Memorial about the the Armenians’ Church in Transylvania. The Document Fidelis relatio from 1693]. In: Történelmi Szemle, 50 (2008) No. 2. 251–285.

227

228

Sources and Literature

Nagy, 2008b. = Nagy, Kornél: Az erdélyi örmény egyházhoz kapcsolódó olaszországi forrásokról [On Archival Sources Related to the Armenians’ Uniate Church of Transylvania in Italy]. In: Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi forrásközlemények. Főszerk. Újváry, Gábor. Budapest, 2008. 411–428. Nagy, 2009a.= Nagy, Kornél: Az erdélyi örmény unió vitás kérdései [The Controversal Questions of the Armenians’ Church-Union in Transylvania]. In: Történelmi Szemle, 51 (2009) No. 1. 91–125. Nagy, 2009b. = Nagy, Kornél: Vardan Hunanean lembergi örmény unitus érsek két levele 1687-ből az erdélyi örményekről [The Two Letters of Vardan Hunanean, Armenian Uniate Archbishop in Lviv upon the Armenians in Transylvania from 1687]. In: Lymbus. Magyarságtudományi forrásközlemények. Főszerk. Újváry, Gábor. Budapest, 2009. 25–40. Nagy, 2010. = Nagy, Kornél: The Document Fidelis relatio (1693) and the Armenians in Transylvania. (A Memorial about the Armenians’ Church in Transylvania.). In: Haigazian Armenological Review, 30 (2010). 379−394. Nagy, 2011. = Nagy, Kornél: Az erdélyi örmények hitvallása 1692-ből [The Armenians Confession of Faith in Transylvania from 1692]. In: Történelmi Szemle, 53 (2011) No 2. 283−313. Nagy, 2016. = Nagy, Kornél: Mártonffy György püspök és az erdélyi örmények [Bishop György Mártonffy and the Armenians in Transylvania]. In: Erdélyi Múzeum, 58 (2016) No. 1. 68−84. Nagy, 2017. = Nagy, Kornél: Andrea Santacroce bécsi apostoli nuncius és az erdélyi örmények egyháza [Andrea Santacroce, Apostolic Nuncio in Vienna and the Armenians’ Church in Transylvania]. In: Erdélyi Múzeum, 59 (2017) No. 1. 102−117. Nagy, 2018. = Nagy, Levente: Kálvinista és/vagy katolikus misszió. A reformáció helyzete az erdélyi románok közt a 17. század végén [Calvinist and/or Catholic Mission. The Situation of the Reformation among the Romanians in Transylvania at the End of the 17th Century]. In: Századok, 152 (2018) No. 3. 623−650. Năsturel, 1996. = Năsturel, Petru: Attitude de patriarcate oecuménique envers les arméniens des pays roumains. In: L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et Culture. Paris, 1996. 144–151. Nistor, 1912. = Nistor, Igor: Handel und Wandel in der Moldau. Bis zum Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts. Czernowitz, 1912. Obertyński, 1934. = Obertyński, Zdzisław: Die Florentiner Union der polnischen Armenier und ihr Bischofskatalog. Rome, 1934. Oborni, 2018. = Oborni, Teréz: Az erdélyi országgyűlések története [History of Diets in Transylvanian Principality in the 16th and 17th Centuries]. Budapest, 2018. (A magyar országgyűlések története – History of Diets in Hungary.) Ōrmanean, 1914. = Ōrmanean, Małakiay: Azgapatum [History of the Armenian Nation]. Constantinople, 1914. Ōrmanean, 1993. = Ōrmanean, Małakiay: Hayoc’ ekełec’in. [The Armenian Church.] Erewan, 1993. (Reprint Edition.)

Secondary Literature

Osipian, 2012−2013. = Alexandr, Osipian: Trans-Cultural Trade in the Black Sea Region, 1250–1700: Integration of the Armenian Trading Diaspora in Moldavian Principality. In: New Europe College Yearbook (2012−2013). No. 1. 113−156. Osipian, 2017. = Alexandr Osipian: Between Mercantilism, Oriental Luxury, and the Ottoman Threat: Dicourses on the Armenian Diaspora in the Early Modern Kingdom of Poland. In: Acta Poloniae Historica 116 (2017). 171−207. Pach, 1975. = Pach, Zsigmond Pál: A levantei kereskedelem erdélyi útvonala [The Levantese Merchandry’s Route in Transylvania]. In: Századok, 109 (1975) No. 1. 3–32. Palčean, 1878. = Palčean, Aram: Patmut’iwn kat’ołikē vardapetut’ean i Hays [History of the Catholic Dogma in Armenia]. Vienna, 1878. Pál-Antal, 2009. = Székely székek a 18. században [The Szekler Sees in the 18th Century]. Vol. 3. Csík-, Gyergyó- és Kászonszék 1701–1722 között [The See of Ciuc, Gheorghen, Cașin between 1701 and 1722]. Sajtó alá rendezte: Pál-Antal, Sándor. Marosvásárhely/ Tirgu Mureş, 2009. Papadakis–Meyendorff, 2002. = Papadakis, Aristeides–Meyendorff, John: A keresztény Kelet és a pápaság felemelkedése [The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy]. Ford. Bódogh-Szabó, Pál. Budapest, 2002. (Varia Byzantiana – Bizánc Világa, VI.) Patmut’yun, 1972. = Hay žołovurdi patmut’yun. [History of the Armenian People.] Vol. 4. Erewan, 1972. Pál, 1997. = Pál, Judit: Az erdélyi örmények népesség számának alakulása és szerkezete a 18. században [The Changing Number of Armenian Inhabitants in Transylvania and its Structure in the 18th Century]. In: Erdélyi Múzeum, 59 (1997) No. 1. 104–120. Pál, 1999. = Pál, Judit: Az erdélyi örmények és beilleszkedésük a magyar társadalomba [The Integration of the Armenians in Transylvania into the Hungarian Society]. In: Kötődések Erdélyhez [Relations to Transylvania]. Szerk. L. Balogh, Béla. Tatabánya, 1999. 64–73. Pál, 2005. = Pál, Judit: Armeni ĭn Transilvania. Contributi la procesul de urbanizar şi dezvoltare Economic a provinciei. Cluj–Napoca, 2005. (Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies.) Pál, 2006. = Pál, Judit: Örmények Erdélyben a 18–19. században [Armenians in Transylvania in the 18th and 19th Centuries]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2006. (Művelődéstörténei Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 1.) 27–38. Pál, 2007. = Pál, Judit: Az örmények integrálódása és az örménységkép változásai Erdélyben a 18–19. században [The Integration of the Armenians and the Change of the Armenians’ Self-Identity in Transylvania in the 18th and 19th Centuries]. In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében II [The Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk.: Őze Sándor–Kovács Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2007. (Művelődéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 75–94. Pál, 2013a. = Judit, Pál: Armenians in Transilvania: From Settlement to Integration. In: Far Away from Mount Ararat. Armenian Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Eds. Bálint Kovács – Emese Pál. Budapest, 2013. 9−16.

229

230

Sources and Literature

Pál, 2013b. = Emese, Pál: The Sacral Art of Transylvanian Armenians. In: Far Away from Mount Ararat. Armenian Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Eds. Bálint Kovács – Emese Pál. Budapest, 2013. 73−83. Pál, 2015. = Pál, Emese: Örmény katolikus templomi berendezkedések Erdélyben [Armenian Catholic Ecclesiastical Fixtures in Transylvania]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2015. Pap, 2018. = Levente Pap: The Integration of the Armenian Immigrants in Lakatos’s Siculia. In: Acta Universitatis Spaientiae, Philologica 10 (2018). No. 1. 105−115. Pelusi, 2008. = Pelusi, Simonetta: Un Codice Marciano Armeno-Polacco e l’unione degli armeni di Leopoli con la Santa Sede. In: Humanistica Marciniana. Saggi offerti a Marino Zorzi. A cura di: Simonetta, Pelusi – Alessandro, Scarsella. Milan, 2008. 139−148. Periş, 1998. = Periş, Lucian: Le Missioni Gesuite in Transilvania e Moldavia nel Seicento. Cluj-Napoca, 1998.(Istoria azi, 2.) Petrowicz, 1950. = Petrowicz, Gregorio: L’unione degli armeni di Polonia con la Santa Sede. Parte Secunda. (1624–1681.) Rome, 1950. (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 135.) Petrowicz, 1971. = Petrowicz, Gregorio: La chiesa armena in Polonia. Pars Prima. (1350–1624.) Rome, 1971. (Studia Ecclesiastica, 12. Historica, 8.) Petrowicz, 1988. = Petrowicz, Gregorio: La chiesa armena in Polonia e nei paesi limitrofi. Parte Terza. (1681–1951). Rome, 1988. (Studia Ecclesiastica, 17. Historica, 10.) Pingirian, 1980. = Pingirian, Gayane: La chapitre 28 du „Livres des Histoire” d’Aŗak’el Dawrižec’i et ses sources concernant le mouvement des colonies arméniennes d’Ukraine durant les années 20–50 du 17e siècle. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 14 (1980). 443–457. Pirigyi, 1990. = Pirigyi István: A magyarországi görögkatolikusok története [History of the Greek (Byzantine) Catholics in Hungary]. Vol. 1. Nyíregyháza, 1990. Pirigyi, 1991. = Pirigyi István: A görögkatolikus magyarság története [History of the Greek (Byzantine) Catholic Hungarians]. Budapest, 1991. Pop, 1998. = Pop, I. Virgil: Armenopolis, eine barocke Gründungsstadt. In: Zeitschrift für Siebenbürgische Landeskunde, 21 (1998). No. 2. 168–191. Puskás, 2006. = Puskás, Attila: Az örmény apostoli egyház és az örmény katolikus egyház identitástudata [Armenian Apostolic and Catholic Churches’ Identity Consciousness.] In: Örmény diaszpóra a Kárpát-medencében [Armenian Diaspora in the Carpathian Basin]. Szerk. Őze, Sándor–Kovács, Bálint. Piliscsaba, 2006. (Művelödéstörténeti Műhely. Felekezet és identitás, 2.) 9−26. R. Várkonyi, 1987. = R. Várkonyi, Ágnes: A balázsfalvi szerződés és fogarasi nyilatkozat; Thököly fejedelemsége és a Diploma Leopoldinum; Gubernium; Egyházak és a románok uniója; Haldokló Erdélyország [The Pact of Balázsfalva and Declaration of Făgăraş, Principality of Emmerich Thököly and Diploma Leopoldinum, Governoprship - Gubernium, Churches and the Church-Union of the Romanians, The Perishing Transylvania]. In: Erdély története. 1606-tól 1830-ig. [History of Transylvania, 1606−1830]. Főszerk. Köpeczi, Béla. Vol. 2. Budapest, 1987. 874–893.

Secondary Literature

Richard, 1977. = Richard, Jean: La Papauté et les missions d’Orient au Moyen Age (XIIIe–XVe siècles). Rome, 1977. Roszko, 1964. = Roszko, Casimir: Les Arméniens à Kuty. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 2 (1964). 145–156. Rus, 1994a. = Rus, Vasile: Cronica „Quattuor aetates Transylvaniae” de Rudolf Bzensky. In: Acta Musei Poroliensis (Zalău), 18 (1994). 205–250. Rus, 1994b. = Rus, Vasile: Rudolf Bzensky’s „Quattuor aetates Transylvaniae” Chronicle. – A Historical and Philological Study. In: Anuarul Institutului de Istorije Cluj, 33 (1994). 233–241. Rus, 1996. = Rus, Vasile: Syllogimaerorum Transylvaniae Ecclesiae Libri Septem de Rudolph Bzensky. In: Acta Musei Napocensis, 33 (1996). No. 2. 369–457. Rus, 1997. = Rus, Vasile: Syllogimaerorum Transylvaniae Ecclesiae Libri Septem de Rudolph Bzensky. In: Acta Musei Napocensis, 34 (1997). No. 2. 183–275. Rus, 1998. = Rus, Vasile: P. Rudolphi Bzensky e S. J. relatio de Ecclesia Transilvana – studiu introductiv şi text reconstituit. In: Medievalia Transilvanica, 2 (1998). No. 2. 289–330. Šahaziz, 1947. = Šahaziz, Erwand: Kat’ołikosakan kondaknerĕ ew ōrhnut’ean t’łt’erĕ. [The Armenian Cathilicos’s Encyclicals and Letters concerning Bishops’ Consecration]. In: Ēǰmiacin, 3 (1947). No. 2. 25–36. Sanspeur, 1982. = Sanspeur, Claude: La neutralité de Byzance face a l’Insurrection Arménienne contre la Perse. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 16 (1982). 151−153. Sarkissian, 1964–1965. = Sarkissian, Karekin: The Doctrine of the Person of Christ in the Armenian Church. A Brief Survey with Special Reference to the Union of the Two Natures. In: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 10 (1964–1965). No. 2. 108–119. Sarkissian, 1975. = Sarkissian, Karekin: The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church. London, 1975. Sarpi, 1699. = Sarpi, Paulus: Historia Concilii Tridentini. Leipzig, 1699. Sávai, 1997b. = Sávai, János: A csíksomlyói és a kantai iskola története [The History of Schools in Şumuleu and Canta]. Szeged, 1997. (Documenta missionaria Hungariam et regionem sub ditione Turcica existentem spectantia, II/II.) Schünemann, 1933. = Schünemann, Konrad: Die Armenier in der Bevölkerungspolitik Maria Theresias. In: A Gróf Klebelsberg Kuno Magyar Történetkutató Intézet Évkönyve [Annual of Hungarian Institute of History called Count Kuno Klebelsberg]. Szerk. Angyal, Dávid. Budapest, 1933. 214–225. Schütz, 1987. = Schütz, Edmond: An Armenian–Kipchak Document of 1640 from Lvov and its Background in Armenia and in the Diaspora. In: Between the Danube and the Caucasus. A Collection of Papers concerning Oriental Sources on the History of the Peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Ed. Kara, György. Budapest, 1987. 247–330. Schütz, 1988. = Schütz, Ödön: Az örmények kitelepítése Perzsiába. Az 1604-es ’nagy szürgün’ örmény források alapján [The Relocation of the Armenians from the Motherland in Persia. The Great ’Sürgün’ in 1604]. In: Keletkutatás, (1988 /ősz). 50–66. Selian, 1999. = Selian, Sergiu: Schita istorica a comunitati armene di Romănia. Bucharest, 1999.

231

232

Sources and Literature

Setian, 1992. = Setian, Nerses: Gli armeni cattolici nell’Imperio Ottomano. Rome, 1992. Shore, 2007. = Shore, Paul: Jesuits and the Politics of Cultural Pluralism in Eighteenth Century Transylvania. Culture, Politics, and Religion, 1693–1773. Rome, 2007. (Bibliotheca Instituti Historici Societatis Iesu, 61.) Soós, 2009. = Soós, István: Esterházy Pál nádor és a Neoacquisitica Commissio [Palatine Paul Esterházy and the Neoacquisitica Commissio]. In: Századok, 51 (2009) 4. sz. 801–852. Squicciarini, 1998. = Donato Squicciarini: Nunzi apostolici a Vienna. Città del Vaticano, 1998. (Libreria Editrice Vaticana.) Sugár, 1984. = Sugár, István: Az egri püspökök története [The History of the Bishops in Eger]. Budapest, 1984. Szabó–Szögi, 1998. = Szabó, Miklós–Szögi, László: Erdélyi peregrinusok [The Peregrins from Transylvania]. Marosvásárhely/ Tirgu-Mureş, 1998. Szádeczky–Kardoss, 1907. = Szádeczky–Kardoss, Lajos: II. Rákóczi Ferenc Erdélyben [Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II in Transylvania]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1907. Szántay, 2005. = Szántay, Antal: Regionalpolitik im alten Europa. Die Verwaltungsreformen Josephs II. in Ungarn in der Lombardei und in der österreichischen Niederlanden. 1785–1790. Budapest, 2005. Száva, 2003. = Száva, Tibor: Szépvízi magyarörmények nyomában [In the Seek of the Hungaro-Armenians in Frumoasa]. Vienna, 2003. Szeghalmy, 1942. = Szeghalmy, Gyula: Erdélyi vármegyék [The Counties in Transylvania]. Budapest, 1942. Szirtes, 2018. = Szirtes Zsófia: A románok vallási uniója Rabutin főparancsnok szemével: Nagyszegi, Sztojka és a protestáns elit 1701-ben [The Church-Union of the Romanians in Transylvania and the Protestant Élite, Nagyszegi, and Nagyszegi in 1701 from the Suprem General Rabutin’s point of view]. In: Catholice reformare. A katolikus egyház a fejedelemség korában [Catholice reformare. The Roman Catholic Church in the Course of the Transylvanian Principality.] Szerk. Diósi, Dávid – Marton, József. Budapest−Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 2018. 343−381. Szongott, 1901. = Szongott, Kristóf: Szamosujvár szabad királyi város monográfiája 1700–1900 [The Monography of Free Royal City Armenoplis, 1700−1900]. Vol. 1. Armenopolis/ Szamosújvár, 1901. Szongott, 1903. = Szongott, Kristóf: A magyarországi örmények ethnographiája [The Ethnography of the Armenians in Hungary]. Armenopolis, 1903. Talatinian, 1979. = Talatinian, Basilio: Il monofitismo nella chiesa armena: storia e dottrina. Jerusalem, 1979. (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 14.) Tamarati, 1910. = Tamarati, Michel: L’Église géorgienne des origines jusqu’à nos jours. Rome, 1910. Tamáska, 2013. = Tamáska, Máté: The Synthesis of Cultures in the Armenopolis Townscape. In: Far Away from Mount Ararat. Armenian Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Eds. Bálint Kovács – Emese Pál. Budapest, 2013. 65−71.

Secondary Literature

Tamáska, 2018. = Tamáska, Máté: Armenian Townscapes in Transylvania. Vienna − Cologne − Weimar, 2018. (Armenier im östlichen Europa = Armenians in Eastern Europe, 6.) Tarisznyás, 1982. = Tarisznyás, Márton: Gyergyó történeti néprajza [The Historical Ethnography of Gheorghen]. Bucharest, 1982. Tekeyan, 1939. = Tekeyan, Pascal: Controverses christologiques en Arméno-Cilicie dans la second moitié du XIIe siècle (1165–1198). Rome, 1939. Temesváry, 1896. = Temesváry, János: A magyar–örmény nemes családok czímerlevelei [The Hungaro-Armenian Noble Families’ Letters Given by Coat of Armes]. Armenopolis, 1896. Temesváry, 1910. = Temesváry, János: Öt erdélyi püspök rangemelése [Five Transylvanian Roman Catholic Bishops’ Elevation to their Office]. Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1910. Temesváry, 1913–1914. = Temesváry, János: Erdély választott püspökei [The Elected Bishops of Transylvania]. Vol. 2. Armenopolis, 1913–1914. Ter-Ghewondyan, 1976. = Ter-Ghewondyan, Aram: The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia. Tr. Garsoïan, Nina. Lisbon, 1976. (Armenian Library of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.) Tēr-Mkrtič’ean, 1908. = Tēr-Mkrtič’ean, Karen: Hayoc’ Ekełec’woy patmut’iwn. [History of the Armenian Apostolic Church]. Vałaršapat, 1908. Ter-Petrosyan, 1986. = Ter-Petrosyan, Lewon: Surb Grigor Lusaworč’i Vardapetut’yan asorakan ałbyurnerĕ [The Syriac Sources of Saint Gregory the Illuminator’s Teaching]. In: Banber Matenadarani, 15 (1986). 95−109. Tocănel, 1972. = Tocănel, Petru: La briosa organizzazione delle Missioni in Bulgaria, Valachia, Moldavia e Transilvania. In: Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum. 350 anni a servizio delle missioni (1622–1700). Vol. 1/2. A cura di Johanes Metzler. Rome–Freiburg–Vienna, 1972. 239–274. Tóth, 1998a. = Tóth, István György: Az első székelyföldi katolikus népszámlálás (Szalinai Isván bosnyák ferences jelentése 1638-ból) [The First Catholic Census in Szeklerland. The Report by the Bosnian Franciscan Monk, István Szalinai from 1638]. In: Történelmi Szemle, 60 (1998). No. 1. 61–85. Tóth, 1998b. = Tóth, István György: Sávai János: a csíksomlyói és a kantai iskola története [János Sávai’s History of the Schools in Şumleu and Canta]. (Book Review.) In: Budapesti Könyvszemle (BUKSZ), 12 (1998). 350−353. Tóth, 2001. = Tóth, István György: Könyv és misszionárius a XVII. századi Magyarországon és Erdélyben [The Book and the Missionary in the-17th -Century-Hungary]. In: Gazdaságtörténet–Könyvtártörténet. Emlékkönyv Berlász Jenő 90. születésnapjára [Ecnomical History − History of Library. Studies in Honour of Jenő Berlász’s 90th Anniversary]. Szerk. Búza, János. Budapest, 2001. 419–455. Tóth, 2004. = Tóth, István György: A szaggatott kapcsolat. A Propaganda és a magyarországi missziók 1622–1700 [The Discoursive Link. The Sacred Congergation of Propaganda Fide and the Missions in Hungary, 1622−1700]. In: Századok, 138 (2004) No. 6. 843–892. Tóth, 2017. = Ferenc, Tóth: Journal des campagnes du duc Charles V de Lorraine. Paris, 2017. (Bibliotheque d’études de l’Europe centrale, 20.)

233

234

Sources and Literature

Tournebize, 1900. = Tournebize, François: Histoire politique et religieuse de l’Arménie. Paris, 1900. Toumanoff, 1954. = Toumanoff, Cyrill: Christian Caucasia between Byzantinum and Iran. In: Traditio, 10 (1954). 109–189. Toumanoff, 1990. = Toumanoff, Cyrill: Les dynasties de la Caucasie chrétienne de l’Antiquité jusqu’au XIXe siècle. Tables généalogiques et chronologiques. 2me édition. Rome, 1990. Trócsányi, 1983. = Trócsányi, Zsolt: Transilvaniayi hayeri iravakan kac’ut’iwnĕ Leopoldyan hrovartaki šrĵanum (1690–1848) [The Status of the Armenians in Transylvania during the Period of Diploma Leopoldinum, 1690−1848]. In: Hay-hungarakan patmakan ew mšakuyt’ayin kaperi patmut’iwnic’ [From the History of Armenian and Hungarian Cultural Relations]. Ašx. Barxudaryan, Vladimir –Vörös, Antal. Erewan, 1983. 168–271. Trócsányi, 1987. = Trócsányi, Zsolt: Különleges jogállású kereskedő elemek [Merchants with Special Law Status in Transylvania]. In: Erdély története. 1606-tól 1830-ig [History of Transylvania, 1606−1830]. Főszerk. Köpeczi, Béla. Vol. 2. Budapest, 1987. 999–1003. Trócsányi, 1988. = Trócsányi, Zsolt: Habsburg politika és Habsburg kormányzat Erdélyben 1690–1740 [The Habsburg’s Policy and the Habsburg’s Goverment in Transylvania 1690−1740]. Budapest, 1988. (A Magyar Országos Levéltár Kiadványai III. Hatóság- és Hivataltörténet, 8.) Tusor, 2002. = Tusor, Péter: Lippay György egri püspök (1637–1642) jelentése FelsőMagyarország vallási helyzetéről. (Archivio Santacroce) [The Report of György Lippay, Bishop of Eger, on the Religious Condition in Upper-Hungary]. In: Levéltári Közlemények, 73 (2002) No. 1–2. 199–241. Tusor, 2004. = Tusor, Péter: Magyar történeti kutatások a Vatikánban [Hungarian Historical Resarches in the Vatican]. Budapest–Rome, 2004. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, 1. Excerptum.) Tusor, 2005. = Tusor, Péter: Purpura Pannonica. Az esztergomi „bíborosi szék” kialakulásának előzményei a 17. században [Purpura Pannonica. The Antecedents of Cardinal’s See in Esztergom in the 17th Century]. Budapest–Rome, 2005. (Collectanea Vaticana Hungariae, 3.) Van Den Oudenrijn, 1956. = Van Den Oudenrijn, Marcantonio: Uniteur et Dominicain d’Arménie. In: Oriens Christianus, 40 (1956). No. 3. 94–112. Van Esbroeck, 1962. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: Chronique arménienne. In: Analecta Bollandiana, 80 (1962). 423−445. Van Esbroeck, 1972. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: Le roi Sanatruk et l’âpotre Thaddée. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 9 (1972). 241−283. Van Esbroeck, 1982. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: L’Église géorgienne des origines au moyen âge. In: Bedi Kartlisa, 40 (1982). 186−199. Van Esbroeck, 1983. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: La naissance du culte de Saint Barthélémy en Arménie. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 17 (1983). 171−195. Van Esbroeck, 1986. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: Impact de l’Écriture sur le Concile de Dwin 555. In: Annuarium historiae concilliorum, 18 (1986). 301−318.

Secondary Literature

Van Esbroeck, 1997. = Van Esbroeck, Michel: The Aphthardocetic Edict of Justinian and its Armenian Background. In: Studia Patristica, 33 (1997). 578–585. Vanyó, 1933. = Vanyó, Tihamér Aladár: Püspöki jelentések a Magyar Szent Korona országainak egyházmegyéiről 1600–1815. [Episcopal Relations on the Dioceses of Hungarian Holy/Sacred Crown’s Land, 1600−1815]. Pannonhalma, 1933. (Olaszországi Magyar Oklevéltár, II.) Vanyó, 1986. = Vanyó, Tihamér Aladár: A bécsi pápai követség levéltárának iratai Magyarországról 1611–1786 [The Documents of Apostolic Nuncio’s Archive in Vienna upon Hungary, 1611−1786]. Budapest, 1986. (Fontes Historiae Aevi Recentioris.) Vanyó, 1991. = Vanyó, Tihamér Aladár: Egyházi források művelődéstörténeti jelentősége [The Cultural Importance of the Ecclesiastical Sources]. In: Századok, 125 (1991) No. 3−4. 332−349. Vanysacker, 1995. = Vanysacker, Dries: Cardinal Giuseppe Garampi (1725–1792): an Enlightened Ultra-montane. Brussels–Rome, 1995. (Bibliothèque de l’Institute Historique Belge de Rome, Vol. 33.) Vanysacker, 1997. = Vanysacker, Dries: The Garampi Correspondence. A Chronological List of the Private Correspondence of Cardinal Giuseppe Garampi (1741–1792). Leuven, 1997. (Instrumenta Theologica, 19.) Varga J., 1991. = Varga, J. János: Berendezkedési tervezetek Magyarországon a török kiűzésének Időszakában. Az ’Einrichtungswerk’ [Constitutional Drafts in Hungary during the Period of War of Liberation under the yoke of Ottoman Empire. The Einrichtungswerk]. In: Századok, 125 (1991). No. 5–6. 449–488. p. Varga J., 1999. = Varga, J. János: A bécsi kormányzat telepítés és valláspolitikája Magyarországon a századfordulón [The Viennese Court Administration’s Population and Religious Policy in Hungary at the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries]. In: A román, magyar és rutén népcsoportok egymáshoz való viszonya a 18. századtól napjainkig [Romanian, Hungarian, and Ruthenian Ethnic Groups’ Relations with Each Other from the 18th Century till Our Days]. Ed. Gehl, Hans–Ciubotă, Viorel. Szatmárnémeti/ Satu Mare – Tübingen, 1999. 41–50. p. Varga, 2007. = Varga, Julia: A Kolozsvári Jezsuita Gimnazium és Akadémia hallgatósága, 1641−1773 (1784) [The Jesuit College and Academy’s Alumni in Cluj-Napoca, 1641−1773 (1784)]. Budapest, 2007. (Felsőoktatástörténeti Kiadványok, Új Sorozat, 6.) Veszely, 1860. = Veszely, Károly: Erdélyi egyháztörténeti adatok [Church-Historical Data from Transylvania]. Vol. 1. (Unicus.) Kolozsvár/ Cluj-Napoca, 1860. Véghseő, 2000. = Végsheő, Tamás: Pálos hittérítők kapcsolatai Északkelet-Magyarország görög katolikusaival [The Pauline Missionaries’s Relations to the Greek Catholic Inhabitants in North-Eastern Hungary]. In: Athanasiana, 12 (2000). 65–81. Véghseő, 2003. = Véghseő, Tamás: Benkovich Ágoston váradi püspök működésének görög katolikus vonatkozásai [The Envolvement of Ágoston Benkovich, Bishop of Oradea with the Greek (Byzantine) Catholicism]. In: Athanasiana, 16 (2003). 99–122.

235

236

Sources and Literature

Véghseő, 2007. = Véghseő, Tamás: «Catholica reformare.» Ágoston Benkovich O.S. P. P. E. missionario Apostolico vescovo di Várad (1631–1702). Budapest–Rome, 2007. (Collactanea Vaticana Hungariae. Classis II. Tom. 2.) Véghseő, 2011. = Véghseő, Tamás: „…mint igaz egyházi ember.”A történelmi Munkácsi Egyházmegye görög katolikus egyházának létrejötte és 17. századi fejlődése [Like a True, and Genuine Man of Church. The Birth of Byzantine/Greek Catholic Diocese in Mukačevo and its Development in the 17th Century]. Nyíregyháza, 2011. (Collectanea Athanasiana 1. Studia 4.) Vörös, 1983. = Vörös, Antal: Hungariayi hay hamarakut’yunĕ feodalizmi žamanakašrĵanum. (1672–1848) [The Armenian Scoiety in Hungary during the Feudalism, 1672−1848]. In: Hay-hungarakan ev mšakuyt’ayin kaperi patmut’yunic’ [From the History of Armenian and Hungarian Cultural Relations]. Ašx. Barxudaryan, Vladimir – Vörös, Antal. Erewan, 1983. 128–167. Winkler, 1980. = Winkler Gabriella: Our Present Knowledge of the History of Agat’angełos and the Original Versions. In: Revue des études arméniennes, 14 (1980). 125−141. Winkler, 1982. = Winkler, Gabriella: Some Extraordinary Features in the Teaching of St. Gregory (Agathangeli Historia). In: Aarhus Armeniaca. Acta Jutlandica. Humanities Series, 56. Aarhus, 1982. 125−140. Winkler, 1985. = Winkler, Gabriella: An Obscure Chapter in Armenian Church History. In: Revue des études arméniennes, 19 (1985). 85−180. Xač’ikean, 1999. = Xač’ikean, Lewon: Haykakan gałt’avayrerĕ Ukrainayum XVI–XVII darerum [The Armenian Colonies in Ukraine in the 17th and 18th Centuries]. In: Ašxatut’iwner. Ašx. Muradean, Paroyr. Vol. 2. Erewan, 1999. Zacharyasiewicz, 1842. = Zacharyasiewicz, Frank: Wiadamoşç o Ormianach w Polsce. Łwów, 1842. Zekiyan, 1981. = Zekiyan, Lewon Bōłos: Prémisses pour une méthodologie critique dans études Arméno-Géorgiennes. In: Bazmavēp, 139 (1981). 460−471. Zekiyan, 1982. = Zekiyan, Lewon Bōłos: La rupture des églises géorgienne et arménienne au début du VIIe siècle. In: Revue des études arméniennes, N. S. 16 (1982). 155–174. Zekiyan, 2000. = Zekiyan, Lewon Bōłos: 14 dari kronakan večerĕ: naxak’ayler Hayoc’ ekełec’banakan kargavičakĕ [Religious Disputes in the 14th Century. Prestigous Polemics and Ecclesiastical Status in the Armenian Apostolic Church]. In: Ēǰmiacin, 56 (2000). No. 1. 106–127. Zulalyan, 1980. = Zulalyan, Mik’ayel: Arewmtyan Hayastan XVI−XVII. dd. [Western Armenia in the 16th and 17th Centuries]. Erewan, 1980. Zsatkovics, 1884. = Zsatkovics Kálmán: Az egri befolyás és az ellen vívott harcz a munkácsi görög szertartású egyházmegye történetében [The Struggle against the Influence of the Bishops in Eger in the History of Byzantine/Greek Catholic Diocese in Mukačevo]. In: Századok, 13 (1884). 680–696. 766–786. 839–877. p.

Index of Persons

A Abbas (The Great) I 52, 53 Abraham (Abraham Ałbat’anec’i) I 34, 35 Acacius (Akakios) of Melytine 31 Accorsi, Sebastiano Maria CR 106, 125, 126, 139, 140, 145, 151, 154, 155, 164, 165, 170, 176, 182, 200 Alacz, Andrea 153, 163, 164, 168, 178, 202 Alexander (The Good) I 89 Alexander VIII 75, 144–147 Altieri, Angelo Paluzzo degli Albertoni 103, 104, 106, 134, 144, 151, 175 Alvinczi, Péter 152 Anastasius I 31 Angevin (Anjou) 88 Anghel, Athanasius 81–84, 202 Antalffy/Antalfi, János 161, 172, 203 Apafi, Michael (Mihály) I 67, 80, 90, 91, 116, 140, 148–150, 191, 195, 196 Apafi, Michael (Mihály) II 91, 92, 140, 152, 163, 196 Apor, István 20, 82, 159, 160, 166, 168, 170–174, 176, 177, 182 Aristaces (Aristakēs At’or.akal) II 95 Aršakuni-dynasty 29 Augustynowicz, Jan (Yovhannēs) Tobiasz 193 Avedik, Félix 23 B Baán, István 10, 18 Babgēn (Babgēn Ot’msec’i) I 31 Bagi, Éva 24 Bagratuni family (dynasty) 37 Bagratuni, Ašot 37 Bagratuni, Smbat 34

Bakáts, Bernadett 11 Ballingh, János 74 Balogh, János 153 Balogh, Miklós 64 Bandini, Marco 90 Bánffy, György 153 Bárány, László → Baranyi Pál László Bárány, Lukács 3 Baranyi, Pál László SJ 80 Barberini, Carlo, jr. 175–177, 183 Barsauma 32 Barxudarean, Vladimir 11 Basil 43, 44, 46 Báthori, Stephen (István) 88 Benda, Kálmán 18, 22 Benkovich, Ágoston OFSPPE 75 Bernatowicz, Johannes (Jan,Yovhannēs) 99, 100, 120, 136 Bernatowicz, Zachary 56 Bethlen, Miklós 150, 152 Bíró, László 11 Bizánczy, György 77–79 Bogdanski, Johannes (Jan) 115 Bóna, Gábor 24 Bonalini, Giuseppe Maria CR 151, 152, 154, 156, 169–176, 181–183, 185 Bonesana, Francesco Giambattistà CR 100, 101, 103–109, 112, 119, 134–136, 138–140, 145–147, 150, 200 Boniface VIII 41 Bottoni, Stefano 11 Bögözi, László OFM 189 Budachowicz, Lazar 138, 139, 165–167, 173, 176, 185, 192 Buonvisi, Francesco 141

238

Index of Persons

Bussy, Jean Louis Rabutin de 166, 176 Bzensky (Bžensky), Rudolf SJ 21, 92, 122, 123, 129, 130, 198, 199 Bžškeanc’, Minas OMech 94 C Cantelmi (Cantelmo), Giacomo 93, 105–109, 130, 132, 133, 135–139, 141–145, 163, 200 Cantemir, Antioh 180, 183 Caraffa, Antonio 140 Casimir (The Great) III 55 Charles (Habsburg) III 78, 85, 190 Charles V (of Lorraine) 140 Clement XI 77 Conrad of Wittelsbach 39 Constantine (Konstandin Vahkac’i) VI 43, 44, 46 Constans II 36 Černojević, Arsenije 69–72 Cerri, Urbano 112 Christophoros 184 Cybo, Edoardo (Odoardo) 93, 102, 105, 107, 110, 115, 119, 127, 129, 131, 134, 136, 141, 144–147 Cyriacus (Kirakos Virapec’i) I 46, 47 Cyrill (Saint) 154 Cziffra Luszig, Jakab 19 Csete, István SJ 171–173, 176, 179 Csorba, Dávid 11 Csorba, László 11 D Dajbukát, László 11 Damokos, Kázmér OFM 147, 203 Dániel, Tódor (T’ēodoros Daniēłean) 92 Davia, Giovanni Antonio (Gianantonio) 164, 170, 177, 178 David (Dawit’ Vałaršapatec’i) V 52, 53 De Camelis, József 75–78, 202, 203 Dositheos 81, 83

Dubrović 69 Duca, Constantin 180 Duca, Gheorghe 121 E Éble, Gábor 23, 24 E. Kovács, Péter 11 Eliazar (Ełiazar Ayntapc’i) I 99, 121, 145 Eriwanc’i, Israyēl 169 Erzurumec’i, Ełia 192 Esterházy, Pál 63, 54, 195 Eugene IV 43–45 Eutyches 32, 169 Éva Kovács 11 Ezra (Ezr P’arr.ažnakertac’i) I 35 F Fabroni, Carlo Aogostino 158, 159, 182 Faustus, Byzantium of (P‘awstos Buzand) 30 Fazekas, István 10, 18 Fejérdy, András 11 Fenessy (Fénesy), György 76 Fillipovics, Polikárp 78 Flämitzer, Johann 63 Fodor, Pál 11 Foschi, Giovanni 11 Fracano, Luca 171 G Galano, Clemente CR 59–61, 97, 98, 100, 104 Galla, Ferenc 18 Gallad, Nicolaus 192 Gandran, Azbēy Hĕrj 90 Garampi, Giuseppe 17 Garsoïan, Nina 29 Gaspar (Polsec’i) 169 Gautieri, Angelo Gabrielle da Nizza (Gábor Tüzes) OFM 63 Gebhardt, Kristóf SJ 171 Germanus (Saint) 36

Index of Persons

Giovanni da Montecorvino 41 Glatz, Ferenc 11 Govrikean, Grigor (Kovrig Gergely) OMech 23 Gregory (Grigor Anawarjec’i) VII 39, 41 Gregory (Grigor Makwec’i Ĵalalbēkean) X 95 Gregory (Grigor Musabēgean) IX 42, 46 Gregory (Grigor Tłay) IV 38 Gregory (Saint) the Illuminator (Surb Grigor Lusaworič’) I 27, 54, 138, 143, 197 Gregory ’Martyrophil’ (Saint) (Surb Grigor Vkayasēr) II 39 Gregory XIII 102 Guy I, (Lusignan, Lusinean) 41

H Habsburgs (Habsburg dynasty) 13, 91, 141, 149, 185, 195, 196 Halászi, István → Merczis, Tamás Halecki, Oscar 54 Haskó, Jakab 64 Hegedűs, András 11 Hegyi, Klára 11 Heraclius 35 Het’um (Hethum) II 41 Hevenesi, Gábor SJ 21, 81, 122, 199 Hodermárszky, János 77 Hodinka, Antal 18 Homonnai Drugeth, János 74 Horn, Ildikó 11 Horváth, Richárd 11 Hunanean, Vardan (Vartan) 5, 61, 96–110, 115, 118–120, 122, 123, 125, 127–134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 146, 148, 163, 167, 168, 170, 176, 177, 181–183, 185, 193, 199–201, 203 Hyacinthus (Yiak’intos) 43, 44

I Ilia, András SJ 123, 124 Illyés, András 160, 180, 181, 188, 203 Ilovec’i (Ilovc’i), Awedik 47, 95 Ilovec’i, Xač’atur 95 Innocent XI 61, 142, 144 Innocent XIII 84 Isaac (Sahak) (Patriarch) 126 Isaac (Sahak Jorop’orec’i) III 36 Isaac (Sahak Part’ew) I (Saint) 31 Isaac (Sahak vardapet) 96, 97 Isaac (Angelus) I 38 Isaac (Sahak K’ilisc’i) I 99 Isabel (Zabēl) 41 Isaias 38

J Jacubowicz, Emmanuel 165 James (Jacob) (Yakob Jułayec’i) IV 98, 121, 132 James (Yakob Ssec’i) III 95 Jakab, Antal 23 Jáklin, Balázs 64 Jakubowicz, Sahak 165 Jakusity, Anna 74 Jakusity, György 74 Jány, Ferenc 69, 70 Jegenyei, Menyhért OFM 189 John (Yovhannēs Bagaranc’i) III 33 John Casimir II 58 John ’the Historian’ (Yovhannēs Patmaban Drasxanakertac’i) V 37 John XXII 41 John (Sobieski, Jan) III 99 Joseph (Habsburg) I. 77, 186 Julian, Halicarnassus of 32, 33 Julius III 51 Justinian (Rhinometus) II 36 Justin I 32

239

240

Index of Persons

K Kada/Káda, István 147, 203 Kaffayec’i, Xač’ik 88 Kalmár, János 10 Kaminszky, Petronius 76, 77 Kapi, Gábor SJ 176 Kaprinay, István SJ 21 Karapet (Karapet Sisc’i) I 46 Katapán, Márton 23 Katkó, Gáspár 11 Kesarac’i, Grigor 57 Kévorkian, Raymond Haroutioun 18 Khosrow (Xosrov) II 34 Kieremowicz, Johannes 121 Kisdy, Benedek 74 Kiss, Sebestyén OFM 189 Klebelsberg, Kunó 10 Klein, Johannes 174 K’ōlanǰian, Suren 24, 94 Kollonich, Leopold (Lipót) von 63–67, 70–73, 75, 76, 82, 156, 157, 159, 160, 179, 195 Koriwn 31 Kovács, Bálint 11, 25 Kovrig, Gergely → Govrikean, Grigor Kozák, Jakab (Yakob) 93 Kyrion (Kiwrion) 34, 35 L Lambronac’i, Nersēs 38, 40 Leo (Lewon) I 39 Leo (Saint)The Great I 32, 34 Leo The Great (Lewon Mec) I 39, 41 Leo (Lewon) IV 42 Leopold I 70, 75, 76, 80–83, 91, 141, 148, 159, 160 Lippay, György 74 Ljubibratić, Petar 71 Louis (Lajos) of Angevin (Anjou) the Great I 88 Lucius III 39

Lukácsy, Kristóf 22–24, 90, 124, 130 Lusignan dynasty 42

M Macedonian dynasty 48 Mamikonean, Vardan 30, 31 Manuel (Comnenus) I 38 Mač’ewan, Melk’ior 169 Maria Theresa (Habsburg) 23, 76, 204 Markos 43 Martelli, Francesco 112 Martin (Martinos) 87 Mártonffy, György 20, 84, 190, 191, 203 Maurice (Mauricius) 33 Mazarec’i, Azaria 169 Medvés Merig János (Yovhannēs Merikean) OFM Conv 112 Mehmet (The Conqueror) II 49 Melkizedek (Melk’isēt’ Garnec’i) 52–54, 56, 62, 96 Mendrul, Elia 6, 93, 94, 137, 142, 161–180, 182, 185, 189, 202 Merczis, Tamás SJ 172 Mesrop, Saint (Surb Mesrop Maštoc’) 27, 31 Meyendorff, John 29 Mihalić, Gabriel 69 Mihalik, Béla Vilmos 11 Mĕntrul, Ełiay K’ristosatur → Mendrul, Elia Moldován, Gergely 23 Molnár, Antal 23 Molnár, Antal 10, 18, 122 Monok, István 11 Montecorvino, Giovanni OFM 41 Moretti, Giacomo 119 Moschero, Luigi (Ludovico) 192 Moses (Movsēs Ełiwardec’i) II 33, 34 Moses (Saint) (Movsēs Tat’ewac’i) III 54 Moses (Movsēs C’urtawc’i) 34 Mutafian, Claude 11

Index of Persons

N Nagyszeghi, Gábor 83, 201 Nahapet (Nahapet Urr.hayec’i) I 173 Nałaš, Mkrtič 47 Naprágyi/Naprághy, Demeter 160 Nasredinean, Grigor II 44, 47, 55 Nasredinean, Yovhannēs I 95 Naxšun, Yovhannēs 153, 175–178, 202 Nemes, Pataki János OSBM 84, 85 Nersesowicz, Deodatus 100–103, 105, 106, 111, 112, 115, 117, 130–132, 142, 175–177, 182– 184, 200, 201, 203 Nersēs, The Parthhian (Part’ew) (Saint) I 30 Nersēs (Nersēs Bagrewandac’i) II (Saint) 32 Nestorius 31 Nicholas (Saint) (Mysticus) I 37 Niederhauser, Emil 24 Nigošean, Astwacatur (T’ēodoros) 151, 163, 199, 201 Nilles, Nicolaus SJ 22 Nizet, François OFM 180 O Oborni, Teréz 11 Ōrbēlean, Step’anos 40 Oxendio → Virziresco, Oxendio P Pál, Emese 25 Pál, Judit 25, 93, 94 Pálffy, Géza 11 Pallavicini, Opizio 100, 104, 105, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 127, 130–132, 136 Papp, Eszter 11 Parčević, Petar (Parchevich, Pietro) 111 Parthenus, Péter 74 Paul III 51 Paul V 69 Péter, Katalin 11

Petrowicz, Gregorz (Gregorio) 18, 24, 124, 130 Philipp (Prince) 41 Philipp (P’ilipos Ałbakec’i) I 59, 96, 120, 126 Photius I (Photios) 37 Piazza, Giulia 190 Pidoux d’Olon, Louis (Aloisius) Marie CR 60 Pignatelli, Francesco 182–184 Pingiryan, Gayane 24 Piromalli, Paolo OP 58, 59, 203 Pók, Attila 11 Potoczky, Vardan Martinus 137, 142, 151, 163, 164, 170, 189, 199, 201 Pray, György SJ 21 Proclus (Saint) 31 Puskás, István 11 R Ŗōšk’ay, Step’anos Step’anosean → Roszka Racoviţă, Mihai 180, 186 Radziejowski, Michál Stefan 144 Raić, Longin 70 Rákóczi Francis (Ferenc) II 15, 20, 67, 76–78, 185, 186 Rákóczi George (György) I 73 Roszka, Stefan Stefanowicz 22, 98, 126, 128, 139, 185, 192, 203 Ruset, Anton 92 R.usot, Anat’olios 92, 121 R. Várkonyi, Ágnes 11 S Safi II 99 Šamiramkertac’i, Yovhannēs 114 Santacroce, Andrea 147, 156, 157, 159, 170, 171, 175, 177 Santini, Marco Antonio 186 Sargis 43 Sávai, János 18

241

242

Index of Persons

Saxe Zeit, Christian, August 190 Schütz, Odön (Edmund) 9–11, 18, 24 Sebēos (Bishop) 36 Selim The Grim/The Wild I 50 Serge (Sergius) (Sargis Miwsayl) III 95 Serikean, Yovhannēs 165 Severus, The Great 32, 47 Shore, Paul 18 Simon (vardapet) (Simēon) 95 Sorger, Mihály OFM Conv. 165 Spínola, Giorgio 191 Spínola, Giulio 144 Step’an Mardiros 115 Stephen (Step’anos Salmastec’i) V 50, 51 Soós, István 11 Sudár, Balázs 11 Sylvester I 143, 197 Szabó, Péter 11 Szebelébi (Szebellébi), Bertalan 112, 161, 171, 172, 174, 176, 196, 203 Széchényi, György 63, 64 Széchényi, Pál 64 Szentiványi, Márton SJ 81 Szerémi, Teofil 80–82 Szongott, Kristóf 23 T Tamerlane (Timur Lenk) 87 Thomas I 35 Tanara, Sebastiano Antonio 155–157, 159 Taraszovics, Vazul 73, 74 Telekessy, István 78 Temesváry, János 23 Teodorowicz, Elia 163 Theodore, The Ínterpreter, Mopsuestia of 31, 32 Theodosius (Theodosios) 81 Thorma, Miklós 153 Thököly, Emmerich (Imre) 140, 155 Tisca, Ion 83 Theodore (T’ēodoros Kilikec’i) I 95

Torosowicz, Nikol 5, 54, 56–62, 89, 96–101, 103, 107, 108, 110, 116, 121, 122, 125, 131–134, 136, 165, 184, 201 T’orossean, Ełiay 170 T’orossean, Simēon 88 Tóth, Gergely 11 Tóth, István György 10, 11, 18 Tóth, Zsombor 11 T’oxat’ec’i, Minas Alēksanean-Zilifdarean (aka Bishop Minas) 6, 15, 16, 22, 89, 92, 96, 97, 111, 113, 114, 116, 118–132, 135, 136, 139, 140, 163, 178, 181, 198, 199 T’oxat’ec’i, Minas Sargis 126 Traina, Giusto 11 Trócsányi, Zsolt 24 Trombetti, Stefano CR 200 Tusor, Péter 11 U Urban VIII

84

V Vahan (Vahan Siwnec’i) I 38 Vajk, Ádám 11 Vanyó, Tihamér Aladár 18 Vardanean, T’ēodoros → Wartanowitz (Wardanowicz), Theodor Vardik, Martiros 90 Varga, J. János 11 Vargha, Kornélia 11 Véghseő, Tamás 11 Verzár, Verzárs →Virziresco Veterani, Federico 116, 117, 152, 155–157 Vinnicky (Vinniczky), György 77 Virmondt von, Damiano Hugo 158, 187 Virziresco, Łukas (Luca, Lucas, Lukács) 118, 192 Virziresco, K’ristop’or 192 Virziresco, Ladislavo 192 Virziresco, Oxendio 5, 6, 10, 14–16, 18–24, 67, 87, 92, 93, 98, 102, 106,

Index of Persons

111–120, 122–132, 134–193, 195, 197–200, 202–205 Virziresco, Step’an (Stefano, István) 118, 192 Virziresco, T’ēodor 192 Vizkeleti, Zsigmond → Csete, István Vörös, Antal 24 Vratanja (Vrtanja), Simeon 69

W Wartanowicz (Wardanowicz), Theodor Thoros (Vardanean, T’ēodoros) 6, 61, 62, 120, 128, 130–138, 140, 141 Welikyj, Athanasius 18

Wladislaus of Varna III (Władysław Warneńczyk) 45 Wladislaus of Vasa IV (Władysław Wasa) 58 Y Yazdegerd III 30 Yerusałēmc’i, Arr.ak’el

169

Z Zachary (Zak’aria Jagec’i) I 37 Zachary (vardapet) 53 Zaccaria Agam (Zak’ariay Ałameanc’) 119 Zekiyan, Lewon Boghos 11 Zeno (Zenon) 31, 32 Zorčić, Pavel 69

243

Index of Places

A Adana (TUR) 41 Aladia (Killalach) (IRL) 146 Alba Iulia (Bălgrad; Karsburg; Weissenburg; Alba Carolina; Gyulafehérvár; RO) 14, 20, 79–82, 149, 162, 183, 189, 190 Alexandria (Eskendereyya; EGY) 32, 154 Ałt’amar (Akdamar) (TUR) 50, 115 Anatolia (TUR) 50, 97, 98, 115 Antioch (Antiokhia; Antakya; TUR) 30, 32, 34, 47, 183 Armenia (Hayastan; Hayk’) 10, 11, 18, 23, 27, 36–38, 40–46, 48–52, 54, 59, 61, 75, 76, 78, 87, 97, 99–101, 103, 104, 120, 126, 129, 133, 164, 166, 181, 203 Armenopolis (Gherla; Neuschloss; Armenierstadt; Hayak’ałak’; Szamosújvár; RO) 8, 15, 18–20, 23, 85, 93, 94, 123, 159, 160, 182, 188–191, 196, 200, 203, 204 Augustopolis in Phrygia (Anabura; Sumeneh; TUR) 147, 203 Austria (Österreich) 18 Awan (Avan; ARM) 33 Azat, river (ARM) 33

B Babylon (IRQ) 60 Bacău (Bákó, RO) 90 Bahnea (Bachnen; Bonyha; Szászbonyha, RO) 93 Balkans (SRB-BUL-GRE) 70, 87 Baranya, county (HUN) 14, 69, 70 Batoş (Botsch, Bátos; RO) 91, 186 Belz (Pelz; Bełz; UA) 110 Bihor, county (Bihar; RO) 79

Bilhorod-Dnistrovskii (Cetatea Alba; UA) 89 Bistriţa (Bistritz; Beszterce; RO) 19, 91, 93, 94, 118, 125, 150–153, 155, 162–168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 182, 185, 186, 188, 196, 199, 202 Bosnia (Bosna) 171 Botoşani (Botosán, Botosány; Botos; RO) 87, 89, 92, 113 Braşov (Kronstadt; Brassovia; Corona; Brassó; RO) 87, 88, 91, 93, 169 Bratislava (Pressburg; Preßburg; Posonium; Pozsony; SK) 64 Brest (Brześć nad Bugiem; BLR) 14, 16, 60, 73, 162, 200, 201 Brussa (Bursa; TUR) 50 Bucharest (Bucureşti; RO) 81, 202 Budapest (HUN) 7, 21, 22, 122 Bulgaria (Bălgaria) 90, 133 Byzantium, (Byzantion; Constantinople; Istanbul; TUR) 5, 9, 27–31, 33–38, 47–50, 52, 56, 57, 62, 79, 81, 108, 114, 126, 132, 169, 182, 204 C Caesarea in Cappadocia (Mazaca; Kaisareia; Mažaka; Kayseri; TUR) 27, 28, 105, 191 Caesarea in Palaestina (ISR) 93 Caiazzo (ITA) 140 Cairo (al-Qāhirah; EGY) 46 Călugăreni (Mikháza; RO) 189 Canta (Kanta; RO) 91, 165 Cappadocia (Kappadokía; Kapadokya; TUR) 27, 28, 105, 191 Cârța (Csíkkarcfalva; Karcfalva; RO) 20 Caşin (Kászonszék; RO) 88

246

Index of Places

Černexa Hora, mountain (Csernekhegy; UA) 74, 76 Černivci (Çernoviţa; Czernowicz; UA) 89 Chalcedon (Khalkédón; Kadiköy-Istanbul; TUR) 28–32, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 51, 53, 60, 68, 128, 137, 143, 169, 199 Chaldiran (Çaldıran; Čaldoran; Galdiran; TUR-IR) 50 Cilicia (Kilikia; TUR) 5, 16, 38–49, 55, 98, 99, 126, 201 Cluj-Napoca (Klausenburg; Claudiopolis; Claudiopoli; Kolozsvár; RO) 156, 162, 171, 176 Ciuc (Csíkszék; RO) 88, 111, 116 Ciucsângeorgiu, (Sankt Georg; Csíkszentgyörgy; RO) 160, 172 Constantinople → Byzantium Corinth (Corinthus; Korinthos; GRE) 112 Coronea (Koroneia; Korón; Koutoumoulas; GRE) 147, 203 Cracow (Krakau; Cracovia; Krakkó; Kraków; POL) 102 Crimea, Crimean-penninsula (Krim; UARU) 45–47, 49, 87, 89, 90, 94, 106, 195–197 Croatia (Hrvatska) 13, 69 C’urtawi (GEOR) 34 Cyprus (Kypros) 42 D Damascus (Damaskos; Dimašq; SYR) 155, 192 Ditrău (Dittersdorf; Gyergyóditró; Ditró; RO) 91, 186 Dwin (Dubios; Tibion; ARM) 31–34, 36 E Edessa → Urfa (TUR) Eger (Erlau; Agria; HUN) 202–204 Egypt (Mis.r) 28

74–76, 78, 79,

Elisabethopolis (Dumbrăveni; Ebbeschdorf; Elisabethstadt; Ełizabēt’opol; Ebesfalva; Erzsébetváros; RO) 19–21, 23, 88, 91, 93, 94, 123, 152, 154, 158, 159, 163, 166, 172, 178, 186, 191, 196, 199, 202 Ēǰmiacin (Vałaršapat; ARM) 50, 55, 59, 97, 107, 115, 120, 136, 166, 180, 181 Ephesus (Éphesos; Efes; TUR) 100 Epiphania in Syria (Hama; SYR) 61, 97, 98, 193, 203 Erzurum (Theodosiopolis, Karin; TUR) 33, 35 Esztergom (Gran; Ostrihom; Strigonium; HUN) 20, 63, 64, 74–76, 79, 87, 116, 120, 157, 160, 179, 190, 202

F Făgăraş (Fugreschmarkt; Fogarasch; Fogarasinum; Fogaras; RO) 79, 84, 148, 204, 205 Fejér, county (HUN) 70, 191 Ferarra (ITA) 5, 14, 16, 42–47, 55, 68, 73, 201 Florence (Firenze) (ITA) 5, 14, 16, 42–47, 55, 68, 73, 201 Focşani (Fokschan; Foksány; RO) 87, 89 Frumoasa (Szépvíz; Csíkszépvíz; RO) 19, 20, 91, 93, 94, 117, 156, 196 Fruška Gora (Frankenwald; Olasz-hegység; Mons Almus; Tarcal-hegység; CR-SRB) 69

G Galaţi (RO) 89, 90, 121 Galicia (Galícia; Halicz; Halytch; Galič; POL-UA) 55 Gherla → Armenopolis (RO) Gheorghen, basin (Gyergyói-medence; RO) 115 Gheorghen (Gyergyószék; RO) 88, 116

Index of Places

Gheorgheni (Niklasmarkt; Čurčōv; Gyergyószentmiklós; RO) 19, 90, 91, 93, 117, 125, 136, 138, 139, 142, 148, 151, 153–155, 162, 172, 186, 191, 196 Gniezno (Gnesen; Gnézna; POL) 144 Golden Horde (Altan Orda; Zolotaya Orda; Arany Horda; UA-RU) 55 Gurghiu (Görgen; Görgényszentimre; RO) 91, 93, 160, 162, 169 Greece (Ellada) 69

H Halicarnassus (Halikarnassos; Bodrum; TUR) 32, 33 Halytch → Galicia Hărman (Honigberg; Szászhermány, RO) 185 Himeria (TUR) 98, 203 Hotin (Choczim; Hotyn; UA) 89 Hŗomklay (TUR) 38, 39 Hungary (Ungarn; Magyarország) 9–11, 13–18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 63–65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 87, 91, 116, 186, 190, 191, 197, 203, 205

I Iaşi (Jassenmarkt; Yaşi; Jászvásárhely; RO) 87, 89, 92, 95 Ireland (Eire) 146 Isfahan (Esfahān; Spahān; Spahan; IR) 53 Ivano-Frankivsk (Stanyslaviv; Stanislau; Stanislawów; Stanislavovium; Szaniszló; UA) 110

J Jasov (Jossau; Jazo; Jászó; SVK) 74 Jerusalem (Hierosolyma; ISR) 81, 83, 126 Judeţul Alba (Fehér/Fejér county; RO) 191

K Kaffa (Theodosia; Feodosiya, UA-RU) 43, 45–47, 87 Kalocsa (Kollotschau; Koloča; Kalača; Colocinum; HUN) 64, 69, 205 Kamianets-Podilskyi (KamieniecPodolski; Camenița Podoliei; Kamaniçe; Camenecinum; UA) 57, 89, 95, 99 Kanta → Canta Karabagh (Arc’ax; Łarabał; Qarabağ; ARM/ AZR) 50 Kiev (Kyiv; Kijów; Kiew; UA) 77, 95 Košice (Kaschau; Cassovia; Kassa; SVK) 186 Krajina (CRO) 65 L Lateran (Rome, ITA) 84 Lucca (ITA) 144 Luck (Łuck; UA) 95 Lviv (Lemberg; Lwów; L’vov; Ilov, Ilōv; Lōv; Lewonopol; Leopoli; Leopolis; UA) 5, 16, 44, 45, 47, 51, 54–59, 61, 90, 94–106, 108, 110, 111, 113, 115, 118–134, 136–139, 141–148, 150, 154, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 175–178, 181–185, 193, 197–203 M Mamistra → Mospsuestia (TUR) Manazkert (Manzikert; Malazgirt; TUR) 28, 32, 38, 48 Marcianopolis (Denya; BG) 90 Marča (Márcsa; Stara Marča; CR) 69, 72 Maramureş (Maramariš; Maramuresch; Máramaros; RO-UA) 79, 116 Melitine/ Melitene (Malatya; TUR) 31 Moldavia (Moldau; Moldva; Moldova; Țara Moldovei; RO-MOL-UA) 6, 14, 19, 22, 24, 49, 62, 65, 67, 87–92, 94–97, 102, 106, 111–114, 116, 120, 121, 124, 126,

247

248

Index of Places

130–133, 136, 137, 139, 140, 147, 151, 154, 155, 159, 163, 168, 170, 174–176, 178–187, 196–199, 202 Mukačevo (Mukačiv; Munkatsch; Munkatschinum; Mukaczewo; Munkács; UA) 15, 73–79, 185, 187, 202 Mopsuestia (Mamistra; Yakapinar; TUR) 31, 41 Mureş, river (Mieresch; Marosch; Maros; RO-HUN) 70

Podolia (Podolien; Podole; Podílja; UA) 55, 67, 89, 111, 116, 151, 196, 197 Poland (Polska) 10, 22, 24, 45, 47, 49, 55–58, 60, 87, 89, 95, 96, 100–103, 106, 108, 116, 124, 133, 137, 143, 186, 200 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 14, 54–56, 58, 62, 73, 89, 96, 97, 100, 103, 104, 107, 108, 115, 121, 131, 133, 136, 144, 167, 168, 184, 186, 193, 198, 200, 201 Przemyśl (Premissel; POL)

N Nagykálló (HUN) 74, 77 Nazareth (an-Nās.ira; Nas.rath; Natzrat; ISR) 190 Naxiǰewan (Naxivan; Nachitschewan; Naxçıvan; AZR-IR) 52, 59, 99, 203 Nitra (Neutra; Nitria; Nyitra; SVK) 64 Novo Hopovo (Új-Hopovo; SRB) 69, 70 O Oradea (Großwardein; Veľký Varadín; Varadinum; Magnovaradinum; Nagyvárad; RO) 75 P Palaestina (Palestina; Palestine; Filast.īn; JOR-ISR) 93 Paris (FRA) 24, 214, 222, 226, 227, 228, 233 Pécs (Fünfkirchen; Sopianae; Quinque Ecclesiae; Pečuh; Pečuj; HUN) 70 Peja (Pejë; Peć; Ipek; KOS) 69 Pera (Beyoğlu-Istanbul; TUR) 43, 47 Persia (Iran) 31, 52–54, 212, 226, 231 Petelea (Birk; Petele; RO) 91, 93, 162, 172–174, 177, 178, 186 Petrovaradin (Novi Sad; Peterwardein; Varadinum Petri; Pétervárad; SRB) 205 Phrygia (Phrygía; Frigya; TUR) 147, 203 Pilis (HUN) 160 Plataia (Platea; Plataies; GRE) 69

77

R Racu (Csíkrákos; RO) 189 Remetea (Gyergyóremete; Remete; RO) 91, 186 Rhodope, mountains (Rhodopes; Rodope; Rodoplar; Rodopi; BG-GRE) 100, 203 Roman (Romanvarasch; Románvásár; RO) 112 Rome (Röm; Roma; ITA) 5–7, 9–11, 13–15, 18, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 39–43, 48–51, 53, 54, 56, 61, 62, 69–71, 73, 75, 78, 84, 98, 100, 102, 107, 108, 111, 113–116, 119–121, 124–126, 128, 130–134, 136–139, 143, 147, 148, 154, 162, 166, 175, 198, 200–205 S Šahapiwan (ARM) 30, 216 Sibiu (Hermannstadt; Cibinium; Cibinio; Nagyszeben; RO) 84, 87, 88, 91, 141, 155, 160, 162, 164, 166, 169, 171, 176, 177 Sebasteia (Sivas; TUR) 75, 78, 203 Sebastopolis in Pontus (Sulusaray; TUR) 79 Seleucia in Isauria (Silifke; TUR) 115, 156, 157 Sămbăta de Jos (Untersombath; Alsószombatfalva; RO) 85 Širakawan (Erazgawors; TUR) 37

Index of Places

Skopje (Shkup; Üsküb; NM) 70 Smyrna (Smirna; Izmir; TUR) 192 Şumuleu (Schomlenberg; Csíksomlyó; RO) 22, 88, 93, 112 Subcarpathia (Zakarpatska oblast’; Kárpátalja; UA) 14, 16, 203 Suceava (Sotschen; Suczawa; Sučava; Szőcsvásár; RO) 87, 89, 90, 92, 95, 121, 181 Szeklerland (Ţinutul Secuiesc; Terra Siculorum; Székelyföld; RO) 67, 88, 90, 102, 111, 115–117, 119, 136, 138–140, 142, 145, 146, 149, 156 Syria (Sūriyā) 28, 61, 97, 98, 192, 193, 203 Sis (Siliske; TUR) 39, 41, 43, Siwnik (ARM) 40 Slavonia (Slavonija; Slawonien; CR) 13, 69, 71 Srem (Srijem; Syrmien; Sirmium; Szerémség; CRO-SRB) 14, 69–71 Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz; Karlofça; Karom; Karlóca; SRB) 71, 162, 202 Suseni (Pränzdorf; Oberdorf; Marosfelfalu; RO) 91, 93, 173–175, 186 T Tălmaciu (Talmesch; Nagytalmács; RO) 87 Ţara Bârsei (Burzenland; Barcaság; RO) 83 Târgu Secuiesc (Szekler Neumarkt; Neoforum Siculorum; Kézdivásárhely; RO) 93 Tigranakert (Amida; Amed; Āmīd; Diyarbekir; Diyarbakir; TUR) 47 Tîrgu Mureş (Neumarkt am Muresch; Nai Muark; Novum Forum Siculorum; Agropolis; Marosvásárhely; RO) 88, 91, 173 Taranto (ITA) 182 Tarsus (TUR) 38

Thebae (Thebes; Thêbai; Thíva; GRE) 164 Theodosiopolis → (Erzurum; TUR) Thessaloniki (Thessalonica; Salonica; Saloniki; Selânik; GRE) 141 Thrace (Thracia; GRE) 90 Traianopolis in Rhodope (Loutra Traianopouleos; GRE) 100, 203 Trei Scaune (Háromszék; RO) 116 Tisa, river (Theiß; Theis; Tisza; UA-ROHUN-SRB) 70 Tokat (Eudokia; Eudoxia; Ewdokia; T’oxat’; TUR) 97, 120 Tolna, county (HUN) 70 Transylvania (Ardeal; Siebenbürgen; Erdély; RO) 5–7, 9–11, 13–25, 27, 54, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 72, 74, 79–83, 85, 87–97, 102, 106, 111–168, 170–175, 177–193, 195–205 Trent (Trient; Trident; Trento; Tria; Trea’t; ITA) 50, 51, 109 Turkey (Türkiye) 27, 47, 75, 97, 115, 120 Turnu Roşu (Portschescht; Vöröstorony; RO) 87

U Ukraine (Ukraina; Ukrajina) 15, 57, 74, 89, 95, 110 Urfa (Edessa; Ur.ha; Şanlıurfa; TUR) 27, 31 Užgorod (Ungwar; Užhorod; Ungvár; Ungwarinum; Yngvyr; UA) 14, 74, 75, 162

V Vác (Waitzen; Vacium; Vacov; HUN) 64 Van, Lake (Van Lič; Van Gölü; TUR) 50 Varna (BG) 45 Vatican, Vatican City (Città del Vaticano; VAT) 10, 11, 17, 18, 25, 127, 161 Venice (Venedig; Venetik; Venezia; ITA) 10, 18, 94, 119, 133, 138

249

250

Index of Places

Vienna (Bécs; Wien; AUT) 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 74, 91, 127, 141, 145, 151, 156, 158–160, 168, 171, 175, 177, 186–190, 192, 195, 196, 203 Volodymyr-Volynskyi (WłodzimierzWołyńsk; UA) 95 W Wallachia (Valachia; Țeara Rumânească; Țara Românească; RO) 61, 79, 81, 90, 94–96, 132, 140, 147, 174 Warsaw (Warschau; Varsovia; Varsavia; Varsovie; Varsó; Warszawa; POL) 93,

99–101, 105, 106, 109–113, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 127, 132–134, 136–138, 140–145, 147, 150, 155, 157, 158, 163, 164, 170, 177, 178, 181–184, 187, 198, 200 Y Yazlovets (Jazłowiec; UA) 110 Yerevan (Eriwan; Iravân; İrvan; Erewan; ARM) 10, 18, 24, 88, 92 Z Zagreb (Agram; Zagrabia; Zágráb; CR) 69

Abbreviations

ARM AUT AZR BEL BG CRO EGY FRA GEOR GRE HUN IR IRL IRQ ISR ITA JOR KOS MOL NM POL ROM RU SRB SVK SYR TUR UA VAT

Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Bulgaria Croatia Egypt France Georgia Greece Hungary Iran Ireland Iraq Israel Italia Jordan Kosovo Moldava North Macedonia Poland Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Syria Turkey Ukraine Vatican