all subject to the traditions of the country. Nothwitstanding this, as the Russians, victorious against the « heathen » Turk, appeared on the Moldavian frontier of the Dniester calling the Roumanians to alliance, to subjection actually, under the rule of the Czarinas Ann and Catherine, the clergy of both Principalities, the bishops and priests of Transylvania as well, persecuted by the Jesuits, gave heed to persuasion and accepted the gifts by which their servitude was to be ensured. From this moment onwards the party of national liberty fought under a lay flag, and only interested boyars followed the Greek cross, calling for reunion with the Orthodox Empire of the East.
The natural benefits of the church did not, however, cease with the 18th century, in which a copious theological literature as well as a new and florid style were introduced thanks to the bishops, translators and publishers, and to the monastical orders. But the schism between laity and clergy continued. This schism was much wider in the 19th century, when the laity gained such close relations with the western world, and the spheres of Catholicism and philosophy. The spirit of the French Revolution now dominated the writers and the diplomatists, a spirit of incredulity and of jeering criticism against all forms of religion, in fine, a spirit of complete anti-clericalism. The State desired the subjection of the Church and, indeed, attained its end: to the State, that is to the leading politicians of the time, to such bishops as were elected by the parliament, and to the priests who were members of the political clubs, the Church owed its politicization. Between the political state and the church intercourse was thus resumed, but identity of interests between the Church and society were no longer capable of realisation.
In spite of all this, to abandon the Orthodoxy is an impossibility for Roumanians. Not because they have strong
