777 The Visibility of Power, the Power of Visibility: The 2002 Competition for the Romanian Patriarchal Cathedral ANDREEA MIHALACHE Catholic University of America The Romanian Orthodox Church ultimately can- mentality with power. In an editorial published celled the results of the 2002 architectural com- in 1997 the political analyst Bogdan Ghiu articu- petition for the Patriarchal Cathedral in Bucharest, lates one aspect of this relationship: “The need the fi nal one of a series whose outcome is still for monuments is the need for identity. Urban uncertain due to the changing politics of visibility and architectural monumentality can ambiguously orchestrated by political and ecclesiastical forces. imply either a confi dent or an uncertain identity.”2 The idea of a national cathedral has a history of Building upon this idea, the cathedral has been more than one hundred thirty years and emerged interpreted as a mark of national identity whose at the end of the nineteenth century as a means origins go back to the nineteenth-century centu- to celebrate the state independence in 1877 and ry quest for architectural nationalism.3 However, the new Romanian Kingdom founded in 1881. The contemporary examples, such as Richard Meier’s project was reiterated throughout the fi rst half of Jubilee Church in Rome – a relatively small paro- the twentieth century in order to embody a much chial church – redefi ne the terms of this relation discussed national identity and emphasize the sta- in a new “power of the powerless” approach.4 The tus of the Orthodox Church as the leading Chris- Romanian cathedral provides an unprecedented tian denomination in Romania. As all their previ- opportunity to question and re-interpret conven- ous attempts, the post-communist 1999 and 2002 tional links between authority and architectural competitions were eventually shelved and the na- monumentality. tional Orthodox cathedral became a battlefi eld of ideas between politicians, clergy, architects and Second, and perhaps more importantly, this story civil society. This paper argues that, refl ecting the reveals the moral price of this political game. The changing balance of power between Church and major forces involved – the Church, the architects political forces, the patriarchal cathedral becomes and the political body – lack the moral authority the instrument operated by both the Orthodox hi- to conduct and support its completion. Although erarchy and the political establishment in order the Orthodox Church ranks very high in polls, its to mutually legitimize their authority. Capitaliz- controversial position during the communist re- ing on the high ranking of the Orthodox Church in gime casts a shadow of doubt over its architec- polls, different governments endorse the idea of tural ambitions. Architects, on the other hand, building a national cathedral as part of electoral are generally blamed for not reacting to the mu- propaganda, whereas the Church counts on politi- tilation of Romanian cities and villages by the so- cal alliances to support its projects. 1 cialist administration. As for political parties and public institutions, studies demonstrate that their The narrative of the Romanian cathedral opens repeated failures to fulfi ll people’s expectations multiple directions of study. First, it revisits the have led to a climate of distrust and suspicion. broader theme of associating architectural monu- 778 SEEKING THE CITY BUILDING ROMANIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY petual postponements, it confronted the reality of the capital with larger issues that encompass the In an article discussing Romanian nationalism and reevaluation of the city center and contemporary identity issues after the fall of communism Kather- architectural strategies to defi ne national identity. ine Verdery interprets the post-socialist society as It initiated a public debate with broader implica- a fragmented body attempting to build its identity tions for the future of the city, since decision mak- by means of opposition with “the other”.5 Where- ing factors such as members of the clergy, politi- as “the other”, “the enemy” used to be identifi ed cians, and intellectuals were compelled to articu- with the communist party, “them” being opposed late their positions and engage into civic actions. to “us”, its dissolution left behind a void that was substituted by the emergence of forces defi ning A HISTORY OF MISSED OPPORTUNITIES themselves in confrontational terms. Verdery de- scribes the categories of “we” and “they” within For over a century, the idea of a major church in the socialist world as being “elastic” because their the capital of the country has been a recurrent inhabitants could change sides, but the split nev- theme associated with nationalistic and politi- ertheless persisted.6 Vedery argues that after the cal ideals, but it has constantly failed to come to fall of communism “the enemy became “the other completion. Based on centuries-long tradition of others” – other nationalities who existed in greater Romanian kings and princes dedicating churches or smaller numbers in every one of these states” in the aftermath of battles, martyrdoms or radical and it is around them that new defi nitions of na- political changes, the Orthodox Church resorts to tional identities will coagulate.7 The quest for de- custom as the main argument in favor of building fi ning Romanian identity has also been echoed, as a national church,9 maintaining that several major Romanian architectural critics Augustin Ioan and uncelebrated episodes in modern history justify Carmen Popescu maintain, in the history of the the foundation of a patriarchal cathedral.10 patriarchal cathedral.8 The nineteenth century nationalist ideologies generated the imperative to The fi rst event that posited this initiative is the build an original Neo-Romanian style in architec- union of the two Romanian principalities of Vala- ture, endeavor that informed professionals’ imag- chia and Moldavia under Alexandru Ioan Cuza in ination throughout the fi rst half of the twentieth 1859 which creates the premises for the modern century. In this context, designing new Orthodox Romanian state. After being appointed king of the churches, including a cathedral in the capital city, new state in 1866, the German prince Carol of Ho- was part of a strategy to shape Romanian iden- henzollern-Sigmaringen leads the independence tity, and after a fi fty year communist hiatus, simi- war against the Ottoman Empire in 1877-1878. lar ideas are revisited in the recent controversies As the country is declared a freestanding kingdom over the patriarchal cathedral. in 1881, on March 1st the Metropolitan of Bucha- rest invites the key political fi gures to an open dis- This paper builds upon and nuances these differ- cussion on the necessity of building a representa- ent arguments. “The others” are not only “other tive church in the capital city. When the Romanian nationalities”, but also different interests groups Orthodox Church becomes autocephalous in 1885, within the same mosaic. The 2002 architectural a national cathedral is now a matter of celebrating competition with the array of heated arguments, both the new Romanian kingdom and its indepen- public debates, and mutual incriminations that dent Church. A tentative to organize an architec- accompanies it reveals the dynamics of alliances tural competition for “the cathedral of the nation” among the main players. Based on momentary takes place in 1891, but it never comes to comple- interests, these temporary coalitions are defi ned, tion.11 In 1900, a conservative government pass- even if not explicitly as such, in ambiguous terms es the entire responsibility of the project to the of “us – the good” and “them – the evil.” However, Orthodox Church, which raises the protests of the this polarization is more complex since the notions ecclesiastical hierarchy who claims support from of “good” and “evil” are, in practice, interchange- the state in compensation for the expropriations able. The relevance of the 2002 competition is initiated by Alexandru Ioan Cuza who had put the manifold. As the fi rst site-specifi c architectural Church under governmental control.12 response to a one hundred years history of per- THE VISIBILITY OF POWER, THE POWER OF VISIBILITY 779 No progress is made in the next twenty years, the Orthodox faith of the Romanian people after but the end of the First World War, with the geo- communism, redeem the sins of those dark years, graphical and demographical transformations of and construct the image of a renewed country.18 the Romanian state, opens unprecedented per- Invoking the Byzantine tradition of intertwining spectives. Following the Trianon treaty, Romania religious and secular powers, the Church expects acquires Transylvania and two-thirds of the Banat the same governmental support whose recipi- from Hungary, Bukovina from Austria, Bessarabia ent it has been until the end of the Second World from Russia, and consequently its land mass and War.19 Building a representative church becomes population doubles.13 According to a 1930 cen- imminent when the fi rst Christian committed ad- sus, 29.1% of the population consists of minori- ministration comes to power in 1996. The fol- ties, which confronts a former ethnically uniform lowing year, three major periodicals20 cover the country with new identity issues.14 Against this issue of the cathedral, and in 1999, disregarding backdrop, on May 10th 1920, the Saint Synod, in the recommendations provided by architects, en- response to a royal letter, proposes to form a pa- vironmental experts and engineers, the Church tronage committee (which apparently never func- offi cials, supported by political forces (the Town tioned) to support what is now called “The Cathe- Hall and the Ministry of Public Works), organize a dral for the Redemption of the Nation.”15 The shift competition in Piata Unirii (Union Square) – one from “Christ’s Resurrection” as the cathedral’s of the lowest areas of the city, with problematical dedication (as stated in 1881 by the Association traffi c and a high risk of fl ooding.