Legislation concerning church life in Wallachia in the 18th century

In Wallachia, during the 18th century, alongside the policy of social, economic and fiscal reforms promoted by the Phanariot princes, we find that there were also several legislative acts regulating aspects of ecclesiastical life. In this study, we aim to conduct a comparative analysis of representative documents of this kind, issued either by princes, bishops or metropolitans, highlighting the decisions of a jurisdictional, moral, patrimonial and practical nature contained therein. In this regard, we refer to the pastoral letters of the bishops of Râmnic, Inochentie (1731) and Climent (1743, 1747), which incorporate provisions established by Saint Antim Ivireanul, Metropolitan of Wallachia (1714). We also refer to the charter of Prince Mihai Racoviță (1742), signed by Bishops Climent of Râmnic, Methodius of Buzău and Neophytus the Cretan, Metropolitan of Wallachia, as well as to the pastoral letters of Bishop Filaret of Râmnic (1781, 1783, 1784, 1785). We also note the document dated 17 January 1746 issued by the hierarchs of Wallachia concerning monastic life, in particular the nuns of the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery.

On reading these documents, we note first and foremost that they stem from practical needs and are intended to revitalise and bring order to church life in Wallachia at that time; for this reason, they share many common features. On the other hand, the documents do not legislate new matters, but draw upon the decrees of ecumenical and local councils, the writings of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical tradition. What distinguishes them is not only the issuer (the prince or the bishops), but also the emphasis they place on jurisdictional, moral, patrimonial provisions, or those of a practical or liturgical nature, depending on their intended recipients (clergy, monks or laity), but also on the current needs or problems identified, which needed to be remedied, so that the faithful might lead a pure life, free from error and sin.

In this context, we note the zeal shown by princes and bishops in guiding the faithful and rectifying the irregularities identified. For example, Mihai Racoviță, Prince of Wallachia, issued the charter of January 1742, under the influence of Metropolitan Neofit the Cretan, being fully aware that: ‘those who observe the holy canons are deemed worthy to have God’s help […] being assured that, as long as the canons of the Holy Fathers are upheld unwaveringly, through their prayers, God will be a help to us and to our people and to these Christian lands, which have been entrusted to us’1”. In 1747, Climent of Râmnic issued a pastoral letter to the priests of his diocese, having learnt of certain irregularities that needed to be rectified immediately: “as many unseemly matters have come to our attention, whichhave occurred and continue to occur amongst you and amongst your parishioners, which […] stem from the obstinacy and irreverence of people and, even more so, from your own foolishness and ignorance’2 On 12 April 1785, Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic, wrote to the archpriest of Gorj County instructing him to take measures to set the Christians in the area on the right path, for he had heard of certain pagan practices being carried out there: ‘Behold, we write to you to advise them, to urge them to turn away from these things and to repent, lest God’s utter wrath come upon them and the earth open up and swallow them, as it did to Dathan and Abiram, or fire fall from heaven to consume them, as it did to Sodom and Gomorrah’3

Above all, you must regard the local Bishop as your head4

Among the provisions of a jurisdictional nature found in the documents analysed, we note the following: the obligation of the clergy to submit to the local bishop (which entailed his appointment and dismissal of abbots, particularly in cases where he observed irregularities at the monastery, for, as stated in 1742, the bishops were obliged to ensure that no unseemly acts took place at the monastery; abbots were required to account to him for the proper management of the monastery’s revenues); a prohibition on the construction of a monastery or church without the knowledge and blessing of the local bishop, and a ban on priests moving to another parish without the bishop’s knowledge. Furthermore, foreign priests were not permitted to minister without their ordination having been verified. The practice of Wallachian priests receiving ordination from other bishops—most often from those south of the Danube—was also prohibited.

Thus, in 1743, Climent commanded the priests in his diocese: ‘You must regard the local Bishop as your supreme authority in all matters. And do not act as spiritual fathers without the written authorisation of your Bishop, for you will be transgressing the decree of the Holy Council of Carthage and will fall into mortal sin, causing harm not only to yourselves, but also to those who wish to receive absolution from you; their sins remain unabsolved […] No priest shall dare to leave his parish and go to another’5”. Ordination at Vidin was also prohibited. The prohibition on leaving one’s parish without cause (without a pious reason and a letter of confession from one’s bishop) is also found in the ‘Capetele de poruncă’ printed by Saint Antim Ivireanul in 1714 6. In 1710, he had published in Church Teaching 7 the Reasons why every priest is permitted to serve in another’s parish, stating that only in cases of necessity, due to the absence of a priest, may one serve in another diocese.

In the charter of 1742 issued by Mihai Racoviță under the guidance of Metropolitan Neofit the Cretan, it was stipulated: ‘First, we command all the clergy, that is to say, archimandrites, abbots, hieromonks, deacons, monks, priests, who are in this Christian land entrusted to us by God, through His great mercy, to submit, in accordance with the divine canons that have been laid down, the imperial decrees, and the ancient local custom, to the metropolitan who shall in due course be appointed to the region, and that the abbots shall render account to His Eminence for all the monasteries’8”.

This act distinguishes between consecrated and non-consecrated monasteries, in the sense that the former were accountable for their revenues to those on whom they depended, and the abbots were appointed and dismissed by them, but with the prince’s knowledge. In contrast, in other matters they were required to submit to the metropolitan of the country, as they were situated within his diocese: ‘these abbots of the monasteries that are under the jurisdiction of other authorities, although I have stated that they too must render account to their lords, and that they may be appointed and removed with our knowledge, provided only that they do not cause offence by this and do not disregard the local Bishop, but in all other ecclesiastical matters they must submit to him at all times and in every respect, since they are within his diocese’9 The non-subordinate monasteries maintained a closer link with the bishop of the country, who could appoint and dismiss abbots who were unfit for the role, for it was fitting that the abbot should be ‘orthodox, wise, blessed and a worthy steward, so that he might manage the monastery and uphold the monastic tradition; and when such a person is found, the local bishop shall appoint him as abbot’9. The bishops were duty-bound to inspect the monasteries and “if they find that the stewards or abbots are not capable and good stewards, the bishops shall have the authority to remove them and appoint other capable stewards in their place”9. Consequently, the document did not emphasise the non-election of the abbot by the council, but rather insisted on the bishop’s duty to oversee good order in the monasteries, to take measures to rectify irregularities and to dismiss unworthy abbots.

…the act emphasised the bishop’s duty to ensure good order in the monasteries, to take measures to rectify irregularities and to remove unworthy abbots.

An interesting provision of the 1742 act is that, should the founders of a place of worship specify that the abbots are disobedient to the local bishop, they are not to be heeded, for ‘they have acted contrary to the divine and holy canons and have written things that have no basis’10

Mihai Racoviță’s charter reiterated the provision of the older canons prohibiting the construction of a church without the knowledge and blessing of the bishop: ‘whenever anyone wishes to build a holy monastery, they shall not have the freedom to build it beforehand, until they have summoned the local bishop and that bishop has raised his hands to heaven and, with the customary prayer, consecrated that place to God”9.

In 1781, Filaret of Râmnic, in an encyclical issued in his diocese, stipulated: “No one shall dare to build a church in the diocese without our consent and blessing, in accordance with the commandment of the Pravilii; but first let the site and the landowner be shown to us, along with the distance between the churches and the number of Christians in the congregation; and thus, uponpermission to commence, let the work be carried out; and once completed, let them inform us”11

These provisions, also mentioned by Saint Antim Ivireanul in Church Teaching (1710), were based on Canons 4 and 8 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which stipulated that no one may build a church without the consent of the city’s bishop 12.

The same document stipulated that ‘none of the priests or deacons should dare to move from their parish to another place without our knowledge and consent’ 13 and prohibited the reception of ordination from across the Danube: ‘if some have crossed the Danube to be ordained as priests or deacons by other foreign bishops […] such people, although they may think they will receive a gift, yet they are without the gift and, moreover, bound by the canons, for the Holy Fathers have decreed that, as law-breakers, they are not received by the Church, having acted without the consent and blessing of the local Bishop”14. In the same vein, foreign priests who wish to minister in the country shall be examined to see whether they have a valid ordination: “as for foreign priests […] such as these must under no circumstances be permitted to perform priestly duties […] until we ourselves have investigated both whether they have indeed been properly ordained and the reason for which they have fled from their post”15.

The pastoral letter of 1731 issued by Innocent of Râmnic stipulated that every priest and deacon should obtain a certificate of ordination from the bishop, and that the priest should obtain a certificate of spiritual guidance from the local bishop 16.

“Let everyone lead a life of pure tranquillity, with honour, piety and humility” 17

The moral principles to be observed by both priests and laypeople are present in all these normative acts under consideration. They are set out more explicitly in Bishop Filaret’s pastoral letters addressed to the archpriests of the Diocese of Râmnic. Thus, on 12 August 1783, the bishop instructed the archpriest of Gorj to go into the villages and teach the priests to lead “a life of pure tranquillity, honour, piety, in humility and in complete accordance with God’s holy commandments’18 so that they might teach the people matters of the soul. On 23 December 1783, he noted that the church, being the house of God, must lack nothing, and he had learnt that ‘in some places within our diocese the churches are utterly neglected and exposed, with rain even falling inside them, whilst others are unfenced and livestock enter the church porch; some lack vessels, vestments and the items necessary for the celebration of the sacraments, whilst others have no books’19 In October 1784, Bishop Filaret wrote to the same archpriest asking him to investigate whether there were service books in the churches within his area, as he had learnt that in some places there were none.

Bishop Filaret sent a pastoral letter in a harsher tone to the archpriest of Gorj on 17 April 1785, having learnt of pagan customs practised in the area, which had to be stopped immediately, as they were highly harmful to the soul and could bring God’s wrath upon them. The bishop had learnt of the superstitions concerning the ‘strigoi’ (pricoli) that had arisen in the area (Gorj), which the bishop classified as heretical and idolatrous beliefs 20, as well as certain practices involving the burning of the dead and their disposal in water, ‘a most wicked act and one subject to severe punishment, both by the Church and by the police’20. The hierarch commanded the archpriest ‘to dispel these delusions, to perform your prayers, a blessing, and to sprinkle the graves and homes of those who are ill and their relatives, for this is the true healing and is commanded by the Holy Church’20. These practices and beliefs concerning the strigoi had arisen following the spread of a disease in the area, but were regarded by the hierarch as possible due to the people’s lack of sound judgement and ignorance of Scripture. People who give credence to such beliefs “are Christians in name only, whilst in their deeds they are worse than pagans; they never set foot in church, do not know what confession means, and do not partake of the Holy Communion even at Easter”20. The hierarch thus pointed out that this belief in the ‘strigoi’ had spread only amongst those people who kept their distance from the Church and who neither went to confession nor received Holy Communion.

Filaret had also referred to this superstition about the strigoi in his encyclical of 1781, when he urged the archpriests to bring such cases to his attention, as they were serious matters. Such occurrences could be prevented if people led a Christian life within the Church, attended services, went to confession, received Holy Communion and made the Sign of the Cross, for in this way the devil would no longer have power over them 21. For the other irregularities and sins found amongst the people, the archpriest was to take measures, but for serious cases he was to refer the matter to the hierarch: ‘Cases of fornication, adultery, incest, the abduction of girls by force, and matters relating to a fourth marriage or cohabitation whilst unmarried—you are to investigate all these matters in accordance with the rules of the canons, and to judge and decide upon them; whilst regarding more serious matters which ought to be investigated by us, we are to be informed thereof, as well as of the dead whom some claim have become ghouls’22”.

In 1742, when Lord Mihai Racoviță noted deviations from Christian morality committed by laypeople, he insisted on the reform of the people, ordering the archpriests not to condone incest, cohabitation, rape and unlawful marriage, pointing out that these had been condemned since ancient times.

The provisions laid down by Saint Antim Ivireanul in 1714—prohibiting priests from frequenting taverns, from selling wine in their own homes, and from meddling in lay affairs—were also adopted by Climent in his decree of 1743, which also reminded priests of the following: ‘you are bound to conduct yourselves with good character, like the saints—gentle, wise, observant of fasting, living a life of self-restraint; do not be frivolous, nor speak shameful words, nor be foolish, nor proud, nor arrogant, nor liars; do not be fond of feasts, nor greedy, gorging yourselves at the table; do not go to the table uninvited’23

In 1731, Bishop Inochentie commanded the priests not to be indifferent to holy matters, but to guard and multiply the talents given to them by the Lord. They were also required to learn the seven holy sacraments by heart, a provision which we may link to the need to raise the faithful’s awareness of the truth of the Orthodox faith, amidst the intensification of propaganda for union with Rome amongst the Transylvanians, at a time when the Bishop of Râmnic was also looking after the people of Brașov who had not accepted the union.

In 1747, Bishop Climent reminded the faithful that they were duty-bound to honour the feasts and the saints with piety, and not ‘as the idol-worshipping Greeks did, with games and dancing at the shrines, but to honour them through services and the safeguarding of the holy churches, and with offerings, consecrated bread, candles, memorial bread and other acts of charity towards the needy, and not merely by taking time off work, for what sort of celebration is that?”24

In the same pastoral letter of 1747, Bishop Climent also addressed the laity to teach them to cease judging the priests, for ‘they were not born priests, but laypeople 25 and if they have become wicked, it is because they had you as bad teachers’26. Beyond their failings, priests are ‘those who bestow blessings upon you, they are the ones who sanctify you, they are the ones who give you new birth through the waters of Holy Baptism, they seal you with the gift of the Holy Spirit, they break the bond of your sins, they reconcile you with God. They make you partakers of the Body and Blood of the Lord Christ. They are the ones who intercede for you with their prayers in your sicknesses, in your needs, in life, in death and after death. And do you not see the great benefit and kindness they show you, the many gifts they bestow upon you! Do not look upon their faults with such envy and anger, for they are merely human beings who live in this world’26

For they are punished as if they were thieves of holy things9

Imagine

Aspects relating to heritage concern the monasteries’ assets and also involve care in the drafting of wills and the distribution of clergymen’s estates. We recall that as early as 1714, in the Capete de poruncă, Saint Antim Ivireanul emphasised the importance of diates and dowry deeds, but these were to be drawn up ‘with the fear of God, without any deceit or envy’27 and whilst the person is of sound mind. The provisions regarding diates were also reiterated by Bishop Filaret of Râmnic in 1781, with the same concern for justice and for ensuring the inheritance of relatives first and foremost, and only if the person so wishes, then to leave a portion to the diocese for the commemoration of their soul.

Provisions relating to inheritance are not addressed in Bishop Climent’s pastoral letters of 1743 and 1747, nor in Bishop Filaret’s encyclical of 1781; but they are set out in detail and substantiated on the basis of ecclesiastical canons in the charter of 1742.

The 1742 document specified, in its fourth point, the conditions under which monks could bequeath property to their relatives, namely only when they had possessed wealth prior to entering monastic life, and not when they had acquired property whilst living in the monastery, as this had been acquired in the monastery’s name. In the event that monks died without heirs and without a will, ‘all their possessions shall belong to the metropolitan see, the diocese or their monastery’9 Mentioned in this context, as the legal basis for the protection of church property, are the decisions of the local synod of Carthage and of the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, at Chalcedon and Nicaea 28. Canon 32 of the Council of Carthage is reproduced almost in full in the act of 1742.

For the Church is the dwelling place of God’s glory 29

The practical advice found in the acts is generally of a liturgical nature, concerning the preservation of the Church in a state of purity and its provision with the vessels and books required for divine services.

Almost the entire text of Bishop Inochentie’s pastoral letter of 1731 consists of practical, liturgical instructions: the Holy Antimis must contain relics and must be placed on the Holy Altar; the Holy Chalice must not be broken, the sponge must not be soiled, services must not be conducted without a candle, the crosses on the church must not be fallen, the church must have a fence so that animals do not enter the courtyard 30.

We also find several references in the pastoral letter of 1747, in which Climent reminded the priests that they were duty-bound to keep the church clean, swept, free of dust, cobwebs and mice, and without broken icons. In 1781, Filaret largely reiterated these provisions, ordering priests to ensure that animals did not enter the churchyard. The church was required to have liturgical books, vessels and an antimension for the celebration of the holy services. The necessity of a baptismal font was emphasised; it had to be large and deep so that children could be fully immersed, with the water covering them, rather than merely being sprinkled. There also had to be Holy Chrism for Chrismation, following Baptism 31. These provisions were linked to Catholic pressure in the area.

The concern for the correct celebration of the Sacraments, in accordance with Orthodox tradition, is also evident in Bishop Filaret’s pastoral letter of December 1784, in which he informed the archpriest of Gorj that the metropolitan had learnt that in some places priests were not anointing children after Baptism. He ordered the archpriest to ensure “that Holy Chrism is not lacking in any church, or that, through the carelessness or stupidity of any priest, it should happen anywhere that children are not anointed at baptism”32; for that priest would have his priestly office revoked, whilst the archpriest would be stripped of his honour, being deemed ‘negligent in church affairs’. A year earlier, on 23 December 1783, Bishop Filaret had asked the archpriest of Gorj to go from church to church and draw up a register detailing the condition of the churches, whether they were built of stone or wood, noting their patron saints, vestments, books and vessels, so that the churches might not be deprived of the necessities of worship 33.

Laypeople began to adjudicate ecclesiastical cases 9

The decree of 1742, unlike the other documents analysed here, contains a reference to ecclesiastical judgement, namely that this must be carried out in accordance with the canons, by the metropolitan or, locally, by the appointed archpriests, and not by laypeople: ‘no one among the boyars or the ispravnics or the captains or anyone else shall interfere in that ecclesiastical judgement’10, for the holy canons forbid this. And indeed, at the First, Second and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, at the Council of Trullo and at local councils, matters concerning the judgement of clergy were regulated in this regard 28. The Lord reaffirmed these decisions, for He had observed that ‘the laity have begun to pass ecclesiastical judgements’9).

The charter for the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery, issued in 1746 and signed by the hierarchs, differs from the others in that it is written for the monks and contains advice to be followed for communal life: the nuns are to be obedient to the abbess, not to leave the monastery without her knowledge and permission, to share meals together, and to read and listen to the lives of the saints and sermons. One of the priests serving there was to be responsible for the monastery’s assets, and he would be obliged to give an account of his activities to the nuns 34. N. I. Șerbănescu, who analysed this document, suggests that it may have been a circular sent to all monasteries, and that the copy in question—namely a register from the National Archives—may have been addressed to the Dintr-un Lemn Monastery in Vâlcea County.

‘The ancient custom ought to be observed as a law’9

The documents analysed shed light on the efforts of the hierarchs of Wallachia in the 18th century to revitalise church life and bring it into good order, by clarifying matters of a jurisdictional, moral, patrimonial and practical nature, the aim being the salvation of Christians, by protecting them from sins and errors, and by encouraging them to lead a pure life within the Church. As we have seen, the provisions of the legislative acts analysed here are not innovative; they are, in fact, a reiteration of the canons of the ecumenical and local councils, of the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition and of the writings of the Holy Fathers, which, due to the times, as we read in the document of 1742, were no longer being fully observed.

Consequently, the documents do not seek to change ecclesiastical law, but rather to ensure better compliance with it in practice. Many of the provisions of the 18th-century acts are also contained in the ‘Correction of the Law’ of 1652, which included, for example, references to the prohibition on erecting a church without the hierarch’s consent, the prohibition on reclaiming property ceded to monasteries, and the prohibition on certain deviations from Christian morality. For both the ‘Îndreptarea Legii’ 35 of 1652, from the time of Matei Basarab, and the ‘Pravilniceasca Condică’ of 1780, from the time of Alexandru Ipsilanti, were based, to a greater or lesser extent, on ancient Byzantine legal sources, in particular the Corpus Juris Civilis 36. We recall, in this context, that Byzantine legal texts, the nomocanones, were a mixture of secular and ecclesiastical legislation, as the Byzantine state was a Christian one, which could not conceive of a separation between the laws of the state and the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers. The adoption of this Byzantine legislation within the Christian Romanian sphere explains the inclusion of provisions of a moral nature in the official acts issued by the rulers. We should therefore not be surprised by these references to the writings of the Holy Fathers in official secular documents; such references were, after all, natural not only in the pastoral letters of the hierarchs but also in secular documents, in accordance with the Byzantine conception of governance, which was adopted in the Romanian sphere and remained influential even into the 18th century.

In fulfilment of our duty towards our subjects to live a Christian life37

Nevertheless, the work of some zealous hierarchs, such as the metropolitans Antim Ivireanul and Neofit Cretanul, and the bishops of Râmnic, Climent and Filaret, had a beneficial and stimulating effect on the ecclesiastical activities of certain princes, such as the issuance of the 1742 charter by Mihai Racoviță and certain provisions exempting priests and monasteries from taxes during the reign of Constantin Mavrocordat 38.

On 8 August 1785, Prince Mihai Suțu wrote a princely letter to the inhabitants of Gorj, invoking an earlier document from 1783, in which he reminded them of the importance of leading a virtuous life within the Church, this being essential both for the salvation of Christians and for their protection in this world from many kinds of dangers that befall an ungodly people, from whom God withholds His mercy: ‘It is the duty of an Orthodox Christian to have fervent faith and piety towards the divine, to observe feast days in the holy churches, to observe holy days of obligation, and to go to confession’37 If these are observed, the people and this land, as well as the livestock and the crops, will be protected by the Lord, but if they live “like beasts, without attending church, without reverence for holy things and without Christian deeds”39, they will suffer not only spiritually but also physically in this life. The Lord urged them to observe for themselves how, for certain sins of the past, they had suffered in previous years. The text indicates that the Prince had consulted the Metropolitan and the bishops on these matters and had ordered the archpriests and district administrators to take the necessary measures to rectify the situation, and that any transgressions should be brought to his attention. We consider that this royal letter, dated August 1785, is linked to Bishop Filaret’s pastoral letter of April 1785, also addressed to the people of Gorj, calling for an end to pagan practices and beliefs in the strigoi. Consequently, the gravity of the situation—which the Church found unacceptable—had led to the initiation of measures to put a stop to it, in which both ecclesiastical and secular authorities were involved, namely the prince, who was aware that it was his duty to ensure a Christian way of life for the people over whom he ruled: ‘in accordance with the duty we have towards our subjects to live a Christian life…’39 Mihai Suțu feared he would have to give an account before the Lord if he allowed the people to sin: ‘by whose wicked idleness you bring my reign to great distress and heartbreak, as those who are in great sin, and we find it hard to account for the lazy and foolish who have been entrusted to our care, when we allow them to live like beasts’37”.

Although in form some of these documents appear to have been influenced by the measures taken by the Austrians in Oltenia—having been issued in the period immediately following the reunification of Oltenia with Muntenia in 1739— during the time of Constantin Mavrocordat, the decrees of the Muntenian hierarchs and princes were nevertheless aimed at the salvation of Christians, and not merely at an assessment of church property for fiscal purposes 40.

Some measures were taken following the observation of irregularities in church life. For example, the jurisdictional provisions in the charter of 1742 concerning obedience to the local bishop can be linked to certain abuses committed by the monasteries in question, which were developing stronger ties with the outside world than with the country’s bishop. Bishop Filaret’s pastoral letters instructing an investigation into the existence of liturgical books in his diocese were issued following the discovery that they were missing, whilst the pastoral letter against superstition regarding the ‘strigoi’ came immediately after the observation of pagan practices in the area.

Therefore, no new elements are introduced, but rather church legislation is reiterated, in the context of its non-application or non-compliance at certain times.

Some of the directives in the pastoral letters aim to eliminate from the lives of the inhabitants of Wallachia certain influences or practices alien to Orthodox teaching. For example, Bishop Filaret emphasised the need for a large baptismal font to allow for immersion at Baptism, rather than merely sprinkling, and he recalled the importance of Chrismation immediately following Baptism – practices which could have been influenced by Catholic customs.

The documents presented here may be supplemented by those issued by Metropolitan Neophytus of Crete, aimed at putting a stop to certain pagan practices, at punishing (going as far as defrocking) certain offences committed by priests, as well as with certain provisions issued by Prince Mihai Racoviță, prohibiting the printing of religious books without the bishop’s blessing, and with the issuance by Constantin Mavrocordat of the charter regulating the printing of religious books 41. Neofit the Cretan also taught Christians through his spoken word, as he did during his pastoral visits around the country in 1746–1747 42. We believe that he also influenced Constantin Mavrocordat in matters of an ecclesiastical nature, was involved in the abolition of the Romanian language, and played a significant role in the issuance of Mihai Racoviță’s charter of 1742. For the author’s thorough knowledge (or the person who profoundly influenced the text) of the 1742 charter points more to a cleric than to a layperson, and we consider that this was Neofit the Cretan.

On the basis of the above, we believe that the work of the hierarch Neophytus the Cretan merits further research, as Archimandrite Policarp Chițulescu: ‘despite his achievements, the personality of Metropolitan Neofit the Cretan – who, although Greek, loved the Romanian people dearly – has not been sufficiently highlighted’43

The rich pastoral activity of the Wallachian hierarchs of the 18th century (which also involved their influence on the decrees of certain princes) complements the series of legislative measures in Wallachia at that time. However, unlike the social, economic and fiscal reforms undertaken by certain Phanariot princes, particularly Constantin Mavrocordat and Alexandru Ipsilanti, the ecclesiastical legislative acts did not introduce any profound innovations or changes, but rather re-established the authenticity and validity of previous ecclesiastical legislative decisions, based on the Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Holy Fathers and Orthodox tradition. Beyond their specific provisions, the ultimate aim of the legislative acts analysed here was the salvation of Christians, made possible by living a chaste life within the Church.

We thus witness in the 18th century the intertwining and coexistence of innovations and modernisations (evident at institutional, social, economic, fiscal and judicial levels) and authentic Orthodox Christian tradition (in the measures taken at ecclesiastical level), this blend of the new and the old being a characteristic we observe in the society of Wallachia during that period.

Appendix 1

“† Milostiu Bojiu, I, Mihai Racoviță, voivode and lord of the lands of Ungrovlahiscoe. I have been granted this domain by the command of my lord,44.

That faithful and ever-memorable Emperor Justinian states in the 123rd year of the era of ‘45’ that, if we endeavour to uphold the political order, whose dominion God, out of His great love for mankind, has entrusted to us for the protection and benefit of our subjects, we are bound to devote the utmost diligence to upholding the holy canons and the divine law, which were established by the Holy Fathers for the salvation of our souls; for those who observe the holy canons shall be deemed worthy to have God’s help, whilst those who transgress them bring a curse upon themselves.

Likewise, he also states in paragraph 131 that we command the holy ecclesiastical canons, which were established and confirmed by the holy councils, to be regarded precisely as the law, for we receive the decrees of the holy councils as we do the divine Scriptures, and we observe their canons as the rule. Considering these things, therefore, and being further convinced that, as long as the canons of the Holy Fathers are upheld unwaveringly, through their prayers God will be a help to us and to our people, and to these Christian lands which have been entrusted to us. By decree I have ordered (certain ecclesiastical customs 46, that is to say, practices which, over a long period of time and through the upheavals and conflicts that have occurred, have somehow come close to being completely abolished), so that this charter may be drawn up and the Church may once again adopt those customs which it formerly had, in accordance with the divine and holy canons, the commands of the ever-memorable emperors, and the ancient custom of this land. For the law also states that the ancient custom is to be observed as a law, solely so that everyone may be made aware of both the divine canons and the imperial decrees which, by command, regulate these privileges of the church.

We therefore set forth some of these in this charter. Now, however, the fourth canon of the Council of Chalcedon so commands, rightly stating: it was deemed at that holy council that all monks in every city should be subject to the bishops. And whoever violates this decree of ours, we have decreed that such a person shall be excommunicated, lest the name of God be dishonoured. And further on it states: ‘The local bishop shall take care of and look after the monastery, as is fitting.’ Likewise, the eighth canon of this same holy council commands as follows: the clergy, that is to say, the abbots and those in charge of monasteries and hospitals 47, shall be subject to the authority of their Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Holy Fathers, and shall not deviate from their lawful commands. And those who dare to violate this decree, if they are members of the clergy, shall be punished ecclesiastically, and if they are monks or laypeople, they are to be excommunicated. Balsamon, in his commentary on this canon, says: Perhaps someone might say that only the clergy of each metropolitan see should be subject to the local Bishop, whilst monks and clergy in hospitals, or those in monasteries—that is, the abbots—should not be subject to the Bishop, even if they are within his diocese, but should be subject to the founders of the monasteries and hospitals. However, the Holy Fathers, rejecting this unlawful and unreasonable claim of theirs, have decreed by command: all these abbots and monks shall be under the authority of the local Bishop, as the Holy Fathers taught from the beginning on this matter; and those who dare to violate this—that is, those who refuse to submit—these abbots and monks to their bishop, if they are clergy, that is, abbots, hieromonks, priests or hierodeacons, shall be punished ecclesiastically by the bishop, as he deems fit; and if they are monks or laypeople, they shall be excommunicated. But those abbots and monks who now claim they will not submit to the Patriarch or the local bishop, on the grounds that they are free from the monastery or free from the Church, and who also cite certain teachings of the founders—who, when confronted with these dreadful excommunications of the Holy Fathers, can truly offer no reply whatsoever, for even if it were stipulated in his will or in the book of worship of the monastery, that the founder of the monastery or church, or the abbots or monks of those monasteries, should not be subject to the local bishop, no one will heed him, for they have decreed contrary to the divine and holy canons and have written things that have no basis whatsoever. And Zonaras, in his commentary on this canon, states: ‘The divine canons command that all clergy and monastics who are in churches, in towns and in the suburbs of these towns are to be subject to the bishops.’ For this reason, this canon also commands that these clergymen submit to the local bishop. Likewise, the clergy of the monasteries (and by the term ‘clergy’ they also refer to hieromonks and abbots in the monasteries, for the holy fathers are in the habit of referring to hieromonks and abbots as clergy as well), all these clergy—that is to say, the hieromonks, abbots and all the monks—this canon commands that they submit to the Bishop and not rebel against or flee from his authority; and those who transgress this canon, whether they be clergy—that is, abbots, hieromonks, priests or deacons—the Bishop shall punish them as he deems fit; but if they are monks or laypeople, the canon has decreed that they shall be excommunicated. And since the canon, whilst speaking of clerics, also mentions laypeople, it seems to me, says the commentator, that the intention of the Holy Fathers that it should be as follows: the Holy Fathers considered that clerics, by virtue of their office, should not dare to bring disgrace upon themselves, to disregard the Bishop’s authority or to place themselves outside his jurisdiction. But it may be that the clergy, placing their hope in certain laypeople who hold power, take their boldness from the power of those laypeople and act in defiance of the bishop. As for these laypeople, who are the instigators of this, the Holy Fathers excommunicate them.

The first canon of the Council of Constantinople, known as the First and Second, which was held at the Church of the Holy Apostles, Arestin, in the interpretation of this canon, states: no one shall have the authority to build a monastery without the knowledge of the Bishop; and when the Bishop is aware of it and grants his blessing, as is customary, then the monastery may be built. And once it has been built, a register shall be drawn up and the following shall be recorded therein: all the monastery’s possessions, both movable and immovable, and this register shall be kept at the metropolitan see; and without the Bishop’s knowledge, the founder shall have no authority, whether to appoint himself as abbot or to appoint another as abbot. Justinian’s Code 123 states: We must therefore state this before all else: that, at all times and throughout my empire, whenever anyone wishes to build a holy monastery, they shall not have the authority to build it beforehand, until he has summoned the local bishop and that bishop has raised his hands to heaven and, with the customary prayer, consecrated that place to God, placing there the sign of our salvation (that is, the most honourable and venerable cross); and thus shall the founder commence the building of the monastery, laying this as the foundation—a most good and beneficial practice—and let this be the beginning of the building of holy monasteries. In addition to this, we command that the abbot or archimandrite of each monastery should not act hypocritically, but to be Orthodox, wise, prudent and a worthy steward, so that he may manage the monastery and uphold the monastic tradition; and when such a person is found, the local bishop shall appoint him as abbot. And all these things which we have decreed for the men’s monasteries, we command that they be observed in the women’s monasteries as well. Furthermore, in another passage of this same decree, he himself commands as follows: We command the stewards, caretakers and abbots of the holy monasteries and hospitals, and all other clergy holding ecclesiastical offices, to be accountable to the bishop for this and to render an account to him of the stewardship they exercise over the monasteries under their care; and in the 131st chapter of the same work, it states: And if the person making this decree appoints those who are to be responsible for the hospitals he builds, or the abbots of the monasteries he establishes, or if he grants this authority to the clerics themselves, we command the cleric in every respect to carry out what the deceased has ordained, whilst the most holy local bishops, to ensure that this stewardship is carried out properly; and should the bishops find that the stewards or abbots are not fit and capable stewards, they shall have the authority to remove them and appoint other capable stewards in their place.

And […]48 of the first book of the Condix, as Photius states in the third chapter, at the 12th line of the middle of his Nomocanon: ‘Bishops, examine the abbots, and the abbots the monks who are in their monasteries.’ Justinian’s Law 133: The bishop of each place shall take care of this (that is, that nothing unseemly should take place in the monasteries), whether he be a patriarch or a metropolitan, and let him send his own men to investigate these matters and ensure that nothing unseemly is allowed to occur in the monasteries. And should any such thing occur, let it be rectified as soon as possible; and it is no wonder that the ancient Christian emperors granted this authority to the bishops of our faith; for, as Christians, they too were subject to the divine canons of the Holy Fathers. It is, however, a matter of wonder that even the almighty emperors of the Ottoman Empire, to whom we are subject, grant almost all this authority to the bishops of our faith, so that they may govern the dioceses according to their own law. For this reason, we hereby include in this charter of ours certain provisions from the imperial decree which customarily grant authority to the bishops, to be observed henceforth. We command that, should any of the bishops, abbots or monks of the metropolitan’s diocese commit a fault, the said metropolitan shall punish him, and no one shall hinder him; furthermore, this charter further states: the vineyards and gardens, the metochions, the mills and the estates belonging to the churches and monasteries, and other such possessions, as well as the livestock given as endowments to the monasteries, as the metropolitans before him have administered them, shall be administered by him as well, and no one shall hinder or cause him trouble; and in another passage, also in this charter, it commands as follows: And when this metropolitan deposes a bishop, an abbot or a priest, and assigns their office to others, no one shall hinder him. And elsewhere, also in this charter, it states: ‘And should it happen that a bishop, priest, monk or nun is imprisoned at the discretion of the said metropolitan, let him also imprison those monks whohave churches and wander from place to place, causing disturbances; this metropolitan shall punish and restrain them; and when he takes stock of the abbots and church stewards, this metropolitan shall suffer no interference from anyone. Furthermore, since we have seen how even ecclesiastical judgements have become unstable due to the vicissitudes of the times, and laypeople have begun to pass ecclesiastical judgements and to impose the excommunications of the Fathers without knowing better, we have deemed it fitting to rectify this matter as well. To this end, for the sake of greater certainty, we hereby include in this charter certain canons of the Holy Fathers and imperial decrees pertaining to this matter: the 9th canon of the Council of Chalcedon; Aristin, in his commentary on this canon, states: ‘Clergy (and the term “clergy” shall include abbots, hieromonks, priests, deacons, monks and nuns), when they face ecclesiastical judgement and disregard the bishop’s judgement to resort to secular courts, shall be punished as prescribed by the holy canons. And a cleric, when he has a dispute with a bishop, shall go to the metropolitan; and a bishop, when he has a dispute with the metropolitan, shall go to the patriarch. And the48, written by Justinian, states: ‘If there is to be an ecclesiastical trial, the civil nobles shall not interfere in that investigation, but the bishops, in accordance with the holy canons, shall conduct it.’ Furthermore, as it has come to our attention that, since the archpriests do not have the authority to investigate and punish according to the ancient local custom, those who engage in intermarriage, those who abduct young women and commit many offences, and those who harbour fugitives in their homes, thereby committing many such offences, we have issued a command to rectify this matter as well, and now we are also laying down certain statutes for this purpose.

Armenopulos, in Book 6, Title 4 […]48 Those who commit incest, that is, those who have relations with a relative, shall have their noses cut off, be flogged, and be separated from one another. The same Armenopulos, in Book 4, Title 6 […]48 states: ‘He who abducts a maiden or a widow, even if she was once his betrothed, may not take her as his wife, even if her father consents and forgives their offence; rather, he is to be punished, together with those who aided him. And further down, in the same passage, it says: ‘He who holds an unlawful wedding, if he holds a position of authority, shall be put to death, and all his possessions shall be forfeited to the state, and he shall be exiled; but if any man is foolish and lacks the authority to do so, he shall still be flogged, and the children born of such unlawful unions shall inherit nothing from their parents.

[…]48 says: He who keeps two women, that is, one by marriage and the other as a concubine, shall be beaten and shall drive his concubine, together with her children, out of that house. And he who keeps only a concubine must either marry her, if he so wishes, or drive her away; but if he does not wish to drive her away, he shall be punished and shall forfeit his office, and if he has that concubine, he shall banish her far from him. Furthermore, as I have learnt that some of the monks and hieromonks, before taking their vows, are very poor, then, after taking monastic vows, they enter monasteries and become abbots, deacons or hold other monastic offices, and through this they acquire, in the name of the monastery, movable and immovable property; then, upon their death, they bequeath these to their relatives or children, thereby causing loss to the monasteries and falling into sin themselves; for this reason, we have decreed that this matter too should be rectified. And furthermore, for the greater benefit, we hereby include in this charter the canons of the Holy Fathers and imperial decrees concerning this matter: Canon 35 of the Council of Carthage: stewards, abbots, hieromonks, deacons and monks who, before taking the monastic vows, were very poor, but who subsequently prospered and acquired movable or immovable property in the name of the church or the monastery, shall leave them to that church or to their monastery, in whose name they were acquired; for they are to be punished as thieves of holy things. And if they acquire anything from the inheritance of their relatives, or if anyone gives them anything on their behalf, and not for the monastery, they are obliged to leave a portion of it as a donation to the monastery, as much as they deem appropriate, and to give the rest wherever they wish. And if, after someone has made a donation to their monastery as they see fit, they subsequently regret it and seek to take that donation back, they shall be defrocked. Justinian’s Law 131 states: we forbid Bishops from giving to their relatives or to any other persons, whoever they may be, those movable and immovable assets which they have acquired after taking up that diocese, but rather to spend them on alms and other pious works; and whatever remains after their death is to remain with the Metropolis or with the respective Diocese. However, they are free to give, as they see fit, whatever they possessed prior to assuming that diocese. And whatever they may happen to gain from the clerical stipends of their relatives, the same shall apply to the other administrators of the monasteries, namely archimandrites, abbots and others; but if any bishop, abbot, hieromonk, hierodeacon, monk or nun should die without a will and without legitimate heirs, all his or her possessions shall be given to his or her monastery. And Armenopolulos, in Title 4 of Book 5, states: Whether man or woman, if they lead a monastic life and enter a monastery without having made a bequest of all their ‹de› before taking monastic vows, from the moment they become a monk or nun, all their possessions shall become the property of the monastery, provided they have no children. But if they have children 49, they are free, even after taking monastic vows, to make a will and leave their possessions to their children—though not all of them—and to retain a portion for themselves, as a child would, and they are obliged to give that portion to their monastery; and if he dies without having drawn up a will, then his children shall divide all his possessions, whatever there may be, and shall also give a portion to the monastery, equivalent to that of a child. In accordance with these holy canons and imperial decrees, and the ancient custom of the land, my reign also seeking to uphold them, we hereby command and decree what is set out below; and whoever observes these shall have God as their helper and the prayers of the holy councils. But whoever transgresses them shall have God as his adversary and the curses of the Holy Fathers, and shall also receive punishment according to the canons, as a thief of holy things and a transgressor of the divine canons and imperial commands.

1 – First, we command all the clergy—that is, archimandrites, abbots, hieromonks, deacons, monks and priests—who are in this Christian land, which God has entrusted to us, by His great mercy, to submit, in accordance with the divine canons that have been laid down, the imperial decrees and the ancient local custom, to the metropolitan who shall, in due course, be appointed to this region. And the abbots of all the monasteries within the country—and not those dedicated elsewhere—shall give an account to His Eminence. As for the abbots of the monasteries situated here in the country but dedicated elsewhere, they shall render account to their own monasteries, to the local authorities of the places where they are affiliated, and they shall instruct them to pay their dues, with my knowledge. These abbots, however, of the monasteries which are dedicated 50 in other parts, although I have said that they are to give an account to their own lords, and that they are to appoint and remove them with our knowledge, provided only that they do not cause disorder because of this and do not disregard the local Bishop, but in all other ecclesiastical matters they are to submit to him, in everything and at all times, since they are within his diocese. As for the abbots of monasteries which are not dedicated to other places, as I have said, we grant full authority to the local metropolitan, whoever that may be in due course, to appoint and remove them, having first informed my lordship. And should it happen that any improper act is committed in any ecclesiastical office, or at any monastery, whether those belonging to the realm or those dedicated elsewhere, the local bishop shall have the authority to investigate and, in accordance with the canons, to rectify the matter; otherwise, he shall not interfere. As for the abbots of the hermitages that are under the jurisdiction of the bishops and belong to them, the bishops shall appoint and dismiss them, hold them to account and exercise authority over them.

2 – We command that whenever there is a church trial, whether here or out in the countryside, the metropolitan shall adjudicate it in accordance with the canons, or the archpriests whom he has appointed in the counties, in accordance with the ancient custom of the land, when the case lies within the metropolitan’s diocese. And if it is within the dioceses of the bishops, the bishops shall have the archpriests who have been appointed in the counties to adjudicate that case in accordance with the canons. And no one—be it a nobleman, a district administrator, a captain, or anyone else—shall interfere with that ecclesiastical judgement, for, in addition to the curses of the Holy Fathers which he shall incur as a transgressor of the canons, he shall be severely punished by my rule as well, as a transgressor of the imperial statutes and the command of my rule.

3 – We grant full authority to the Metropolitan of the country, and likewise to the bishops in their dioceses and to the archpriests appointed in the counties, to investigate in detail cases of intermarriage between relatives, the abduction of young women, unlawful marriages, those who keep concubines, and other immoral acts. And the archpriests, having investigated and discovered any sin such as those mentioned above, shall report each one to their respective Bishop: the archpriests of the Metropolis to the Metropolitan, and the archpriests of the dioceses to the bishops; and if the Bishops are able to rectify that sin and impose the penance appropriate to the nature of the offence committed, in accordance with the divine and holy spiritual canons, and to ensure that the offender renounces and abandons that sin; very well; but if they do not heed the bishops, do not accept the penance imposed upon them, and do not renounce that sin, we command the bishops to bring this to my attention, and then those who have sinned and have not repented shall be punished according to the law. Furthermore, we command the Most Reverend bishops to take great care and to instruct their archpriests, and the archpriests to instruct the other priests, to urge their parishioners—whether Romanians, or Roma, to go to confession; and after they have confessed and fulfilled the penance assigned to them by their spiritual fathers, to partake of the Holy Mysteries at least three times a year: once at the Holy Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, at Easter, the second time on the Dormition of the Most Holy Mother of God, that is, on the Feast of the Dormition, and the third time on the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, at Christmas. Furthermore, we command and authorise the archpriests to investigate those who may be sorcerers or sorceresses, and when they find any such person, whether male or female, they are to admonish them to desist from that unlawful act. And if they repent and desist, so much the better; but if they refuse to abstain from that devilish 51 practice, for such a person, the archpriests shall report the matter to their bishops; and if that sorcerer or that sorceress does not heed the bishops’ instruction to be spiritually reformed, the bishops‹shall inform my lordship so that he may punish them according to the holy canons.

4 – We command that any metropolitan, bishop, archimandrite, abbot, hieromonk, hierodeacon, monk or nun who, prior totaking up a diocese, or before taking monastic vows or assuming the office of abbot, is too poor; and once the bishop has taken up a diocese, or the abbot has assumed the abbacy, and derives income from the name of his diocese or monastery, or from the provisions of his diocese or fromthe monastery’s provisions—whether movable or immovable property—once he has died, all shall belong to the metropolitan see, the diocese or the respective monastery, and none of his relatives shall be permitted to take anything from these. And if he has acquired anything from the estate of his relatives, or if anyone has given him anything in his own name, but not in the name of his metropolitan see, his diocese or his monastery, he shall have the freedom to dispose of it as he pleases, leaving as a debt to his metropolitan see, diocese or monastery whatever he may deem fit; and subsequently, if he repents and takes back that gift, he shall have no right but shall even be punished in accordance with the canons of the Holy Fathers; and if any metropolitan, bishop, abbot, hieromonk, hierodeacon50, monk or nun should die without a will and without heirs, by right, all his possessions shall belong to his metropolitan see, diocese or monastery; this applies to those who have never married; whilst for bishops, abbots, nuns or monks who were previously married and subsequently took monastic vows, became bishops and did not make any dowrybefore taking monastic vows or becoming bishops, in such cases where they have taken monastic vows and become bishops, all their possessions shall belong to the metropolitan see, the diocese or their monastery, provided they have no children; but if they have children, they shall make a bequest, and after they have taken monastic vows and become bishops, they shall leave their property to their children (that is, whatever they possessed before taking monastic vows or becoming bishops, for whatever is acquired after they have become monks or bishops, in the name of their diocese or monastery, shall belong either to their diocese or to their monastery, but not all of it; rather, they shall set aside a portion, so that one of their children may be obliged to hand it over to the metropolitan see, the bishops or the monasteries. And if they die without heirs, then their children shall divide all their possessions, whether much or little (that is, whatever they possessed before becoming monks or bishops), and shall be obliged to give a portion to the monastery, equal to what any one of them would have received.

This is what I, the sovereign, command, in accordance with the divine canons of the Holy Fathers, the imperial decrees, and the ancient custom of the land; and so it shall be done without fail.

And this charter was ratified by the entire ecclesiastical assembly together with the Most Reverend Metropolitan of the land, Kir Neofit: and by two God-loving bishops, His Holiness Father Kir Climent, Bishop of Râmnic, and His Holiness Kir Methodius, Bishop of Buzău, together with all the honourable and faithful great boyars of my royal council: Mr Iordache Crețulescu, the chamberlain, and Mr K. Dudescul, the chief scribe; Lord Antonache, the ban; Lord Manolache, the spătar; Lord Grigorie Greceanu, the treasurer; Lord Barbul Văcărescul, the clucer; Lord Iordache, the chamberlain; Lord Ștefan Dudescul, the cupbearer; and Lord Radul Crețulescul as steward; Lord Iordache as commissioner; Lord Vasilache as chamberlain; Lord Drăghicea as baker and steward; and Dumitrașco Racoviță as chancellor.

And this charter was drawn up in the first year, in the second reign of my reign, here in the capital of my dominion, in Bucharest, by Mihai, the logothete, son of Toma Băbeanul, in the year since the creation of the world, 7250 ‹1742›, January […]48.

Mihai Racoviță, Voivode.

[…]48”

Central National Historical Archives, Metropolitan See of Wallachia, CDXLVII/1. Original in Romanian, parchment, black and red ink, miniatures. Copies held at the Library of the Romanian Academy, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Historical Documents, DCXXV/26, f. 50r–56r. (Inventory of the documents retained by the commission in copy form from those returned to the Metropolis in original. Attached to Archive No. 102.) and Historical Documents, DCCCXI/185, f. 396r–401r.

Appendix 2

Filaret, the merciful Bojieiu,
Bishop of Râmnic,
† Reverend Archpriest Ioane, from the south of Gorj, blessings!

We have been informed that in certain villages within the counties of our diocese, in recent days, many of the inhabitants have suffered a most dreadful and tragic death from heart disease, and the ignorant, through their lack of understanding and ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, have been deceived by 52, inventing names of demons 53 and thus would have dug up the dead and burnt them, or thrown them into the water—a most abominable act and one subject to severe condemnation, both by the Church and by the authorities.

For such heresies existed only in ancient times, by which the Greeks were deceived and misled; But we, both on earth and in heaven, know no other Lord but God, and to Him belongs all power—to raise up and to put to death; whereas the devil has no power whatsoever. For this reason, through false opinions, dreams and visions, he strives to deceive wicked Christians, those who are not grounded in the faith, nor enlightened by doctrine, and to work all manner of such deceptions upon those wretches who are Christians in name only, whose deeds are worse than those of pagans, and who never set foot in a church, do not know what confession means, and do not partake of the Holy Communion even at Easter. We can assure you that in such people, not after death but whilst they are still alive, the devil takes up residence and brings ruin not only to human bodies through the cruelty of terrible deeds: some murdering their brothers, others their wives, others their parents, and others taking their own lives; but even more so, he corrupts the souls of the most foolish—that is, causing harm and delusion through evil counsel, inciting them to theft and fornication, and even more so by inciting them to seek out sorcerers, charmers and spells, disregarding their own knowledge and accepting books of curses and accursed writings through deceit, or for bribes, or out of envy, or out of greed. It is for such people as these that we write to you, that you may advise them and urge them to turn away and repent, lest God’s utter wrath fall upon them and the earth open up and swallow them up, as it did to Dathan and Abiram, or fire fall from heaven to consume them, as it did to Sodom and Gomorrah, and if they heed us and repent, let them know that we shall deliver them not only from such plagues as these—disease and sudden death, the striking down of their children, the destruction of their livestock and the barrenness of their fields— for all these are divine punishments for our sins; but they shall also gain the kingdom of heaven after death, and here they shall be satisfied with all the bounties of the earth and shall have the blessing of God and of our humility. But those who do not listen, but follow their own opinions and cling to their heretical and idolatrous beliefs, such as these shall be excommunicated and cast out from the Church, and shall be punished by the civil authorities themselves, as a warning to others, in accordance with the commands issued by His Majesty, our most exalted lord. However, for those who have recently been buried, to dispel the illusions, offer your prayers, holy fathers, and sprinkle holy water upon their graves and the homes of those who are ill and their relatives, for this is 54 the true healing commanded by the Holy Church.

Do this, and may you be blessed.

12
April 1785. The seal of Filaret.

BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom., 2100, f. 110 r–v.

Appendix 3

† Milostieiu Bojieiu, Io Mihail Costandin Suțu, voivode and lord of the lands of 55, to all the inhabitants of the southern part of 56 Gorj, we hereby inform you that, as far back as the year 1783, in the month of December, we sent you my letters and made it clear that the duty of an Orthodox Christian is to have firm faith and fervent devotion to all things divine, to observe feast days in the holy churches, to observe religious holidays, to go to confession, to avoid and be kept from acts contrary to the law, and when a people observe these things and demonstrate their faith through their deeds, they will undoubtedly earn God’s mercy, and they and that land will be protected and kept safe from all evil, not only in this life, but also in the next, where they will pass on blameless. On the contrary, when a people fail to observe these principles and live like beasts, without the Church, without reverence for the holy things, and without Christian deeds, not only will they remain spiritually guilty, to be condemned after death, but also in this life, all evils befall them and their land, for God sends afflictions; indeed, for reasons such as these, this land has been afflicted not a few times in past years, as you know: afflictions upon your crops and your livestock for fiveto six years running, until God, in His mercy, lifted these afflictions and, through His boundless goodness, granted relief, whilst awaiting repentance and reform from this people of His.

Therefore, do not by any means forget those instructions and abandon the Christian way of life once more, disregarding what has gone before and falling, as it were, into idleness—for your wicked idleness causes me great anxiety and heartache, as those who are in great sin, and we find it hard to account for the lazy and foolish who have been entrusted to our care, when we allow them to live like beasts.

Behold, therefore, in accordance with the duty we have towards our subjects to live in a Christian manner, by this royal letter of ours, we once again admonish you and write to all of you who remember the tribulations of past years, not to provoke God’s wrath once more, and that every inhabitant, without slackness, may observe the holy Church, Sundays and feast days, and pay due reverence at the divine services and Liturgies; to fast, to go to confession, and to take care in due time, as well as during this holy fast, on the day of the Dormition of our Lady, the Mother of Christ God. Likewise, on working days, when there are no feast days, it is again the Christian’s first duty to offer his worship, to call upon the name of God for help, and thus to set about his work and labour, for this duty is not to be performed merely out of obedience to our command, but because you yourselves love God with all your heart and with all your mind, and so that you may demonstrate your faith and zeal in your actions; you, your wives and your children must not be idle, but whilst carrying out your work, do not forget your Christian duty, showing reverence for all that is holy, keeping your bodies and souls pure for your own good, for your well-being, and for the sake of your very souls. And by following this, now and always, you may then place your hope in God that you will gain His mercy and that you and your land may always be protected from disease and from the passions that cause want and poverty. However, if you do not follow these words and live like beasts, without the Church, without reverence for the holy things, failing to fulfil your Christian duty, then the duty that is ours compels us to regard you with abhorrence and to deal with the lazy, the wicked and the ignorant as is fitting.

We have discussed this matter with His Holiness the Metropolitan and with the God-loving bishops, so that we might issue appropriate commands to the archpriests and to the priests, and likewise to command the county administrators, so that they may urge and compel you to carry out this task. And as for those who do not comply, we have commanded them to inform us without fail. Tolico pisah gospodstva mi.

8
August 1785. The Pro-logothete.

BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f 241v–242r. The seal of Io Mihai Costandin Șuțu, Voivode, and five other seals.

Imagine

• 1

  ANIC, Metropolitan See of Wallachia, CDXLVII/1. See Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘We receive the decrees of the divine councils as we do the divine Scriptures, and we observe their canons as we do the Pravila. The Charter of Mihai Racoviță, Prince of Wallachia, dated January 1742”, in Studii Teologice, 2016, no. 1, pp. 137–164.

• 2

  See the full text in C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Clement, Bishop of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XVIII, 1894–1985, no. 2, pp. 123–129, reproduced from Menirea preotului, 2, 15 March 1894.

• 3

  Library of the Romanian Academy (BAR), Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 110 r.

• 4

  The Andrei Șaguna Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Sibiu, Old Romanian Books (CRV), I/19.

• 5

  Andrei Șaguna Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Sibiu, CRV, I/19. See also Oana-Mădălina Popescu, ‘Aspects of the work of the clergy of Râmnic in the 18th century: Bishop Climent of Râmnic’s pastoral letter of 1743’, in Revista istorică, XXV, 2014, no. 3–4, pp. 349–384, republished in Martyria, 2016, no. 2, pp. 53–73.

• 6

  BAR, CRV 168. See also Saint Antim of Ivire, Writings, ed. M. Stanciu, G. Ștrempel, Bucharest, 2nd ed., 2016, p. 174.

• 7

  Saint Antim of Ivire, Writings…, p. 137.

• 8

  ANIC, the Metropolitan See of Wallachia, CDXLVII/1.

• 9a9b9c9d9e9f9g9h9i

  ANIC, Metropolitan See of Wallachia, CDXLVII/1.

• 10a10b

  ANIC, Metropolis of Wallachia, CDXLVII/1.

• 11

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, XV, 1891, nos. 6–8, pp. 402–647; here no. 6, p. 407.

• 12

  I. N. Floca, The Canons of the Orthodox Church: Notes and Commentaries, Sibiu, 2005, p. 87.

• 13

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Climent, Bishop of Râmnic’…, no. 7, p. 518.

• 14

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Clement, Bishop of Râmnic’…, no. 8, p. 630.

• 15

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Climent, Bishop of Râmnic’…, no. 8, p. 627.

• 16

  R. Tempea, The History of the Holy Church of Șcheii in Brașov, Bucharest, 1969, p. 138.

• 17

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 243.

• 18

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 214.

• 19

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 215.

• 20a20b20c20d

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 110 r.

• 21

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Canonical Encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic…’, no. 8, p. 645.

• 22

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The canonical encyclical of Filaret, Bishop of Râmnic…’, no. 8, p. 645.

• 23

  The Andrei Șaguna Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Sibiu, Carte Românească Veche (CRV), I/19.

• 24

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Climent, Bishop of Râmnic’…, p. 124.

• 25

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Clement, Bishop of Râmnic’…, p. 128.

• 26a26b

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Climent, Bishop of Râmnic’…, p. 128.

• 27

  Saint Antim of Iviri, Writings…, p. 175.

• 28a28b

  I. N. Floca, The Canons…, p. 91.

• 29

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 243 v.

• 30

  R. Tempea, The History of the Holy Church of Șcheii in Brașov…, pp. 137–138.

• 31

  C. Erbiceanu, ‘The Encyclical of Clement, Bishop of Râmnic’…, no. 7, pp. 511–513.

• 32

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 214 v.

• 33

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 243r.

• 34

  N. I. Șerbănescu, ‘A monastic settlement from the time of Constantin Mavrocordat’, in Revista Istorică Română, XVI, III, 1946, pp. 294–297.

• 35

  The Reform of the Law, Bucharest, 1962.

• 36

  G. Fotino, ‘Justinian in the Light of Ancient Romanian Legal Culture’, excerpt from the Yearbook of the Faculty of Law, Bucharest, II, 1940, nos. 2–4, pp. 9–12; Gh. Cronț, ‘The Influence of Christianity on Written Law’, extract from the Journal of Lectures and Conferences, II, 1937, nos. 2–4, pp. 6–9; V. Al. Georgescu, Byzantium and Romanian Institutions up to the Mid-18th Century, Bucharest, 1980.

• 37a37b37c

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 241v.

• 38

  Constantin Mavrocordat’s charter, published in 1740, exempted priests and monasteries from taxes. See Constantin Mavrocordat’s Register, ed. C. Istrati, vol. III, Iași, 2008, p. 522 and D. Danielescu, E. Roman, Sources on the History of Romanian Monasticism, 16th–21st Centuries, Iași, 2011, p. 44.

• 39a39b

  BAR, Manuscripts – Rare Books, Ms. rom. 2100, f. 241 v.

• 40

  Ș. Papacostea, Oltenia under Austrian Rule (1718–1739), Bucharest, 1998, pp. 294–295 refers to the Austrian models for sound revenue management, which influenced the measures taken by Constantin Mavrocordat.

• 41

  M. Țipău, ‘Neofit I the Cretan, Metropolitan of Ungrovlahia’, in Șerban Cantacuzino, Antim Ivireanul and Neofit the Cretan, Promoters of the Romanian Language in Worship, Bucharest, 2013, p. 245; T. Simedrea, ‘The Bucharest Printing Press for Ecclesiastical Books in the Years 1740–1750’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, 1965, nos. 9–10, pp. 862–863.

• 42

  See Neofit the Cretan, Travel Journal, ed. N. Șofelea, Bucharest, 2013.

• 43

  P. Chițulescu, ‘A great lover of books: Metropolitan Neofit the Cretan’, in Ziarul Lumina, 12 January 2011.

• 44

  “I, Mihai Racoviță, by the grace of God voivode and lord of the Land of Ungrovlahia. I, the ruler, issue this decree of my reign.” Text in Church Slavonic.

• 45

  Dictionary of the Romanian Language (DLR), vol. X, Bucharest, 2010, p. 169: neara – an amendment to a law; a collection of such laws.

• 46

  DLR, vol. XII, p. 1613: pronomion-privilegium.

• 47

  spitarurilor in the text.

• 48a48b48c48d48e48f48g

  Illegible.

• 49

  And if the children have it overwritten.

• 50a50b

  Overwritten.

• 51

  DLR, vol. XII, p. 1420: prilesti – to delude (oneself), to be deluded.

• 52

  Prilăsti = to deceive. A. Scriban, Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Bucharest, 2013, p. 1049.

• 53

  Pricolici, tricolici = ghouls, vampires, werewolves. A. Scriban, Dictionary…, p. 1346.

• 54

  Repeated word.

• 55

  By the grace of God, I, Mihail Constantin Suțu, voivode and lord of the land of Ungrvlahia.

• 56

  From the county.